Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 10 May.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 May at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: As the remaining 11 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 May.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [27 February],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 10 May.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 May.

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [29 March],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 10 May.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To he read a Second time on Thursday 10 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Broadcasting Bill

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the Broadcasting Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): The Broadcasting Bill made good progress in Committee, and returns to the Floor of the House for its remaining stages very soon.

Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the way in which he handled this detailed and comprehensive Bill, and in particular on the way in which he responded to the many representations made about it. Can he respond to some further representations that have been made about clause 84(2), which lays down general provisions about licensed services?

Mr. Mellor: If my hon. Friend is anxious about the editorialising provisions as they affect religious broadcasting, I can say that we are giving further consideration to where to draw the important line—I know that the House will agree that that line has to be drawn—between legitimate religious expression and offering religious bodies the opportunity to expand religious broadcasting, as other groups will be able to expand other forms of broadcasting in the much wider broadcasting choice that will be available, and opening the door to the American or cult broadcasters who would do the public a disservice. I am aware of the worry that the editorialising provisions might, for instance, prevent a local church that had a community radio station from broadcasting its own religious services. I hope that the rules will not bite that deeply, but, because I am concerned about that, we shall consider whether there should be a new formulation. I hope to be able to take that a stage further on Report.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the improvements that the Minister has announced, and his further elaboration, but will he explain why Christian television stations should not be licensed when secular ones can be licensed and the same requirements could be stipulated for each?

Mr. Mellor: I am happy to say that Christian television stations on cable or on the non-direct broadcasting by satellite services can be licensed. That is one of the changes that people will welcome. The hon. Gentleman asked why should not this be done without let or hindrance. The answer would be apparent if one turned on a television in the United States and saw Mr. Orel Roberts, Mr. Jimmy Swaggart and the rest of them. Opening the way to such people is no part of the propagation of decent Christian broadcasting.

Car Security

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on efforts made by motor manufacturers in the last year to improve the quality of car security.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Progress could certainly be faster. For example, it is very disappointing that the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, which has made an anti-car theft award to individual manufacturers, felt it necessary this year to withhold the award on the ground that no manufacturer had made great progress in improving car security.
However, I understand from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that the motor industry is continuing to pursue a programme of security improvement. In large part, the society has worked with the Department of Transport towards the production of a European Commission directive based on part I of the British standard on vehicle security. It has also participated in industry meetings to produce an international standard on car alarms.

Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents will be disappointed with the attitude of the motor industry towards motor car security. He will also be aware that the bulk of crime in London these days is stealing from or of motor cars and that a great deal of it could be halted if motor cars were made more secure. Will my right hon. Friend impress upon the motor industry the vital and urgent importance of improving the security of new motor cars and devising ways of improving the security of existing motor cars?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Thefts from motor cars represent about 26 per cent. of the annual crime figures. Most of the increase in crime in the 1980s—I choose my words carefully—has been due to an increase in car-related crime. I think that that is accurately describable as the British disease. Car manufacturers could and should do more to help, as, perhaps, should the insurance industry.

Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only one model of motor car in the United Kingdom is manufactured with a foolproof and tamper-proof milometer? Is not it high time that motor manufacturers were encouraged to have tamper-proof odometers in all vehicles so that those who enter the second-hand car market can at least be offered some protection?

Mr. Patten: I was not aware of the issue which my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House. It is a good idea that tamper-proof odometers should be available. It is a curious reflection that while motor cars in the United Kingdom have the same equipment fitted to them as do motor cars in West Germany, for example, our rate of car-related crime is much higher than that in West Germany. Fitting equipment is one thing; using the equipment properly is another. We are open to all suggestions. The Home Office will draw up a register of cars and rank them in terms of vulnerability to theft and break-in. I shall publish the information.

Mr. Skinner: Who would buy a second-hand car from this Government?

Mr. Patten: I once bought a very good second-hand car from my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). I had it for three or four years, and it gave me great service.

Police Pay

Dame Peggy Fenner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the real increase in a police constable's pay over the last 10 years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Since the Government came to office, the pay of police constables has increased by just over 41 per cent. in real terms.

Dame Peggy Fenner: Does police remuneration under the Edmund-Davies formula include the rent allowance as an integral part, as a number of my police officer constituents, who have corresponded with me, seem to believe? What has been the increase in rent allowance for the 29 forces whose force maxima were last reviewed in 1988?

Mr. Lloyd: As my memory serves me, Lord Edmund-Davies did not make any recommendation on rent allowance. He said that he regarded it as reimbursement, not pay. I can answer precisely the second part of my hon. Friend's question. The change for those who last had an increase in rent allowance in 1988 and, therefore, did not have one last year, will be about 16 per cent. There is a small margin either way because some police forces had the uprating a few months earlier or later than others.

Mr. Wilson: If the Minister were giving evidence in a court of law, would not he be guilty of withholding relevant information? In telling us of an increase in police pay, he failed conspicuously to mention the reduction in police pay that has been effected through the imposition of the poll tax in place of the previous rating system. Is not it hypocritical to prosecute when there has been something akin to the three-card trick, with the Government giving money with one hand and taking it away with the other?

Mr. Lloyd: No. I gave accurate and clear statistics on police pay. Under the arrangements that we have made for the community charge, which every adult should pay, the police, who are extremely well paid, come into the same category as the rest of the community, and quite rightly so.

Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government have done extremely well by the police, but that there have been some difficulties about the rent allowance? Will he ask the chief constables in the forces concerned to report back to him on whether the rent allowance difficulties will lead to recruitment difficulties in the future?

Mr. Lloyd: The fact that police pay has risen so generously as I have said will ensure that we do not have recruitment difficulties, but we discuss such matters constantly with chief officers. My hon. Friend referred to the "problem" of rent allowances. Let me give one figure which will help to put that problem into perspective. We have spent 59 per cent. more on total police expenditure, including pay and equipment, since we took office, but rent allowances have risen by 124 per cent., showing that they have got quite out of line with what the rest of the community has to pay for housing and with police pay.

Mr. Hattersley: Why did the Home Secretary veto the agreement on pay and allowances which was decided by arbitration three months ago? Will he concede that,


because of the conjunction of the poll tax and the holding down of rent allowances, many thousands of police officers will be worse off next year than they otherwise would have been? What will that do for police morale? Does the Minister share my opinion that the Home Secretary should have answered this question on the crucial matter of police pay?

Mr. Lloyd: The police are much fairer and more sensible than the right hon. Gentleman gives them credit for. The fact that their pay has moved in the way that it has shows how well they have been looked after. As Edmund-Davies said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has a final duty to make a decision and he must make it on the wider basis of the totality of spending and in comparison with the rest of the community. In addition, he has a duty to report to the House, which he will do when the measures come before the House in due time.

Prison Statistics

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): On Friday 27 April the total prison population in England and Wales was 45,948. That is 3,513 fewer than that on 28 April 1989, when the population stood at 49,461.
The latest projections of the prison population, based on information available to the autumn of 1989, suggest a continuing growth in population over the next five years to a total of 57,100 in 1995, but the fall since then has been very encouraging. The projections will be revised to take account of these changes and the proposals in the White Paper "Crime. Justice, and Protecting the Public" in due course.

Mr. Knox: I welcome the decline in the prison population in recent months, but does my right hon. and learned Friend expect it to continue to fall in future, and is he taking steps to try wherever possible to keep people out of prison?

Mr. Waddington: The central theme of the White Paper is that we should ensure that we do not send to prison unnecessarily those guilty of less serious crimes, but at the same time provide adequate powers of punishment so that the courts can give serious and severe sentences to those guilty of violent crime. In publishing the White Paper we were not embarking on a new course; we were building on the success of proposals introduced by the Government during the, past eight years. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that part of the fall in the prison population during the past 12 months has been due to the fact that many fewer young offenders have been sent to prison. That is an encouraging trend which I hope will develop as a result of the White Paper.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary agree that the present prison overcrowding, and regimes that provide prisoners with no useful occupation, are more conducive to recidivism than to reform? Does he agree, given the natural distress of those involved in the Strangeways disturbance, which has led to cries for industrial action of

a kind that seems most unwelcome, that the time has come seriously to examine with prison officers the inadequacies of the existing regimes?

Mr. Waddington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to bend our efforts towards the improvement of prison regimes. One sad consequence of the recent outbreaks of rioting is that the damage done to cells is a real setback to our plans. One need only read the report of the chief inspector of prisons on the improvements made at Strangeways during the 12 months before the riot to recognise that a great tribute should be paid to him for making such great improvements. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to continue to tackle, the issues, but we are confronted with major problems now because of the loss of accommodation resulting from the riots.

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend will welcome the dramatic and increasing reduction in the prison population. I know that he is equally concerned about the conditions for people who must be sent to prison or placed on remand. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that some members of the Home Affairs Select Committee visited Strangeways on Monday. Is he aware of the very high regard that the staff have for the governor of that institution? Is he aware also of the high morale that prevails, and of the great courage that they have displayed over the past 25 days? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what Manchester and its staff need most of all is the remand prison brought back into use as soon as possible?

Mr. Waddington: I am glad to be able to tell the House that during the past 12 months there has been a considerable fall in the remand population. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that we should continue to address that matter. I am grateful for his remarks about the governor of Strangeways and all the prison officers working there. I certainly pay tribute to them. An assessment of the structural damage to the wings at Manchester is being made. When it is completed, we shall review the various options for the prison's future. Obviously I can see the attractions, and the importance to the staff, of bringing at least part of the prison back into use as soon as possible.

Mr. Randall: Notwithstanding the figures that the Home Secretary has just given the House, does not he accept that the Government's prison reform policy has moved at the speed of a tortoise? We are in 1990, yet too many prisoners are still locked up in cells for more than 20 hours a day in appalling conditions, and have inadequate opportunities for education and exercise. Has not the Government's continuing indifference and complacency over the past decade contributed to the kind of situation that arose at Strangeways?

Mr. Waddington: That is an extraordinary comment. As the Labour party is so coy these days about revealing its policies and how much they will cost, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come back next time and tell the House how much an incoming Labour Government would spend on a new prison building programme. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we introduced the first substantial prison building programme this century. It involves constructing no fewer than 28 prisons, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that eight of them


have already been completed. For a member of a party that did precisely nothing about prisons when it was in office, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are sheer cheek.

Mr. David Nicholson: As my right hon. and learned Friend reflects on the unfortunate events at Strangeways, perhaps he will recall the famous remark made by Lloyd George to Churchill in the Norway debate of 1940, that Churchill should not turn himself into an air raid shelter to protect those who were really responsible. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, while we on the Conservative Benches know that he will take responsibility for his Department like the honourable man that he is, we believe that he should not protect people who have given bad advice or who have not fully passed on information?

Mr. Waddington: I note what my hon. Friend says. I have already made the position perfectly clear. I have no intention whatever of placing the blame on officials. I can only tell the House the truth, which is that there is a chain of command. The deputy director-general reported to me about these matters and I did not veto any proposals that he or the governor put to me.

Community Policing

Mr. Matthew Taylor:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of police time is spent in community policing.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: It is not feasible to quantify the specific percentage of time spent on community policing as it is integral to almost all aspects of police activity. It is a primary responsibility of every police officer to serve his or her local community efficiently and effectively, and with its consent and support. The deployment of officers at force level to fulfil this duty is a matter for the individual chief officer concerned.

Mr. Taylor: I hope that the Minister accepts that getting bobbies on the beat in our towns and villages is the best method of crime prevention and detection, and that that should be a priority. May I draw attention to Devon and Cornwall constabulary? On average, a constable serves 407 people in his or her area, but in our area an officer serves 523 people. That makes community policing in the far-flung towns and villages of our community difficult. Will the Minister press urgently for a substantial improvement in the ratio?

Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend takes the advice of Her Majesty's inspector of police on these matters. The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly have been delighted at the announcement of 17 more police officer posts in the police force in his area this year, and we shall consider the recommendations that are made next year. I must take issue with him on one point. Policemen on the beat are not the only or necessarily the major part of community policing, which includes neighbourhood watch, crime prevention panels, work in schools, work with young people and consultative groups. A range of activities is part of good community policing, not just the one element that the hon. Gentleman mentions, although it is an important one.

Mr. Norris: Although I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the growth in community policing, does he

agree that a feature of it that deserves greater examination is the fact that the attention paid to it by different forces throughout the country tends to vary? Does he agree that advice from his Department to chief constables, emphasising the importance of community policing, may ensure that, throughout Britain, the same high priority is attached to this vital area of police work?

Mr. Lloyd: We place great importance on the matter and talk to chief officers about it. My hon. Friend is right that there are different practices in different forces and that community policing is understood in a variety of ways. That is why we have Dr. Trevor Bennett conducting research systematically with each force to see what each force regards as community policing policy. In that way we hope not only to have a common understanding of what is meant by it, but to pick out best practice to recommend to forces throughout the country

West Midlands Police

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the special branch document ref. No. 10368/74; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Waddington: As I said on 30 March in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), a copy of this document was passed to me by the West Midlands police on 23 January 1990. I examined the document carefully and concluded that it did not constitute new evidence which might cast doubt on the safety of the convictions of the Birmingham Six.

Mr. Livingstone: As the document is a special branch record of the confession of a confirmed member of the IRA, who was then convicted for his crimes, is not the Home Secretary disturbed that on page 3 the individual names a member of the IRA, Mr. Michael Hayes, whom he met in December 1974 and who told him that he had planted one of the two Birmingham pub bombs? As the confession has been in the hands of the police and of special branch for over a decade, how can it be that it did not lead to doubts in the Home Secretary's mind and to a full investigation? Surely this calls into doubt the soundness of the conviction. Surely now is the time for a full public inquiry.

Mr. Waddington: One thing the police report certainly was not was a confession—it was a report on information provided by a person arrested for terrorist offences in the 1970s. The Home Office made inquiries about the document after a Granada television programme last November which referred to its existence, but the hon. Gentleman has got it entirely wrong. The men referred to in the document had been included in the original police investigation, but not sufficient evidence was found against them. Therefore the production of the document by Granada was a non-event and I was able to recognise it as such.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask special branch to investigate why it is that if those men are wrongly convicted they always face the wall whenever they appear in front of a prison governor because they claim that they are political prisoners and not prisoners of British justice?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that I am capable of commenting on that. I have made my position absolutely clear: if material is put before me which it is suggested is new evidence that may cast doubt on the safety of the convictions, I am prepared to look at those matters. Here is a clear case where a great deal of fuss has been made about a document which includes the names of certain people who it is quite clear were investigated by the police way back in 1974, before the trial, when no sufficient evidence was found against them.

Crime Management

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how much money was invested in purchasing new technology for crime management and crime pattern analysis by each police force in Wales during 1989–90.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The purchase of computers and other equipment is a matter for chief constables and their police authorities. I understand, however, that in 1989–90 the police forces in Wales spent the following amounts on new technology for crime management and crime pattern analysis: Dyfed Powys £7,500, Gwent £3,500 and South Wales £89,500.
In addition, the North Wales police spent £323,000 on a crime reporting system which will also provide some crime management and crime analysis facilities.

Mr. Jones: The Minister will recall that in an earlier reply his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that he heeded the reports of Her Majesty's inspectors. Is he aware of the recent HMI report into the South Wales police which said that their lack of computers was hampering their effectiveness in detecting crime. The report states:
Crime management and crime pattern analysis——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase, not quote.

Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that that report makes it clear that because chief officers of police have to consult files manually they are hampered in trying to detect crime? Will he make it clear to South Wales police that further funding will be made available so that they can overcome that problem?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I am well aware of the HMI report and that senior officers in the forces concerned share its views on the necessity of improving the situation. Plans to do so must lie with the police authorities, and this year they are intending to spend a further £2 million on equipment. I hope that a great deal of that money will go on upgrading their computer systems. Of the amount that they intend to spend, one third will come from central Government grant.

Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on a report published today, which shows that one in five of the public in south Wales is not satisfied with the work of the police? Those people gave two reasons for their dissatisfaction—first, that the police are too busy to do their job properly and, secondly, that there are not enough police on the streets. If that police force does not receive money for its computer equipment it will be unable to do its job properly.

Mr. Lloyd: From the figures that the hon. Gentleman cites, it is clear that 80 per cent. of people in the area are satisfied with the police. In answer to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), I said that a particular shortcoming in computer technology had been identified and knowledge of it shared with the chief officers. A substantial sum of money is available among the police forces in Wales to spend on equipment and no doubt they will spend it.

Sentencing

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increases in sentences for serious and violent crimes there have been since 1984.

Mr. John Patten: Between 1984 and 1988, average sentence lengths increased by 33 per cent. for violence against the person, 47 per cent. for sexual offences and 28 per cent. for robbery.

Mr. Arnold: I welcome those considerable increases in sentences for violent criminals and I particularly welcome the fact that in the context of attempting to reduce the prison population, we are not weakening our efforts to deal with violent criminals. May we be assured that sentences will continue to increase in length, not only as a deterrent but to protect our constituents from violent and evil men?

Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's concern for public protection and for women's safety in this country. It is our intention that the courts shall have lengthy sentences available to them to deal with violent and sexual offenders, and it is quite right that that should be the case.
It is also our plan that when a sex or violence offender is coming near to the end of his sentence and is about to be released into the community, there shall be new rules concerning the supervision of such an offender giving the victim and the victim's family the right to have their views taken into account as to whether, for example, a convicted rapist should return to the area where he lived before to reside for the rest of his sentence and that is quite right, too.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it has been made more possible, from a practical point of view, to increase sentences for violent and serious crime and to reduce the prison population because the judiciary has made space in our prisons by reducing the number of prisoners on remand, by keeping the number of fine defaulters down to well below 1 per cent. and by taking advantage of community service orders and the other alternatives to imprisonment that the Government have made prodigious efforts to increase?

Mr. Patten: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says about the judiciary and I accept that he is entirely accurate to say that there has been a considerable recognition by all concerned, including the Labour party, that many non-violent and non-serious offenders can be punished adequately in the community, thereby helping the community and paying back for some of the wrong that they have done.
We are absolutely determined, however that those who commit serious and violent crimes shall continue to be punished seriously and that the public shall be protected from them. Proposals by the Home Secretary include the


proposal that in future a persistent sexual or violent offender who offends again, however small the offence, can be sentenced right up to the maximum for public protection purposes.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that judges are to some extent inhibited from passing the right sentences by the antique and arcane calendar of offences, many of which have not been changed since 1860 or 1861? Will the Government introduce a whole new range of offences to deal with homicide and violence which would enable judges to exercise their discretion more fully and properly?

Mr. Patten: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, being a recorder as well as a Member of Parliament, that there has been a considerable amount of criminal law reform in the 1980s. However, I believe that what he says is well worth considering in the 1990s.

Domestic Violence

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special units have been established within the Metropolitan police area dealing with cases of domestic violence.

Mr. John Patten: There are currently 35 such units. A year ago there were 12. The first ever was set up in 1987 and I am told that the commissioner plans more.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that special police units to deal with domestic violence are performing an extremely valuable role, not only in protecting battered women but in nipping violence in the bud and thus keeping together families which might otherwise fall apart? Does he agree that that initiative is pursuing the valuable twin aims of preserving the family and preserving law and order?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that more women are coming forward to report cases of domestic violence shows the confidence of victims in the way in which the police handle such cases, and we should pay tribute to the police for that. My hon. Friend is also right to say that early intervention by the police can stop small domestic violence incidents escalating into more serious cases of violence and can thus keep families together, which is what we all want to see. That is why in the next couple of months I shall be issuing a circular to the police encouraging them to set up more domestic violence units and to keep at-risk registers.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister satisfied with the number of units that have been established? Does he concede that this important issue needs to be dealt with rapidly by the police, with an increase in the number of officers trained to deal with victims of domestic violence? Does he agree that women who are victims of such violence must be confident that their case will be recorded as one of domestic violence and not just put down as a neighbourhood dispute, as so often happens in the police recording procedures?

Mr. Patten: I hope that it will not alarm the hon. Gentleman if I say that I agree with him. It is important that every crime is reported to the police and recorded. The fact that the commissioner has introduced such an increase in the number of domestic violence units in the

Metropolitan area is welcome. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will visit those in his district to see the excellent work done in them.

Juvenile Offenders

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to bring forward his proposals giving courts stronger power to hold parents liable for the criminal activities of young offenders.

Mr. Waddington: We shall bring forward legislation to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", including those on parental responsibility, at the first suitable opportunity.

Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one third of all crime is perpetrated by the under-17s and that some parents do not seem to know where their children are either by day or at night? Could the regulations therefore be introduced at the earliest possible date, bearing in mind the experience in the United States of America where similar regulations have caused parents to consider their children's actions more carefully?

Mr. Waddington: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of that. It should be possible—I believe that it is—to bring home to parents their responsibility when a child goes wrong, without making the parents guilty of a criminal offence. We can do that by strengthening the powers to require parents to pay the fines imposed on their children, allowing magistrates to assess the fines according the parents' means as well as the child's means, requiring a parent to attend court when a child is brought to court and binding parents over to exercise proper control over their children. I should have thought that all right-minded people would understand the common sense of those proposals.

Concessionary Television Licences

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on concessionary licences for retirement pensioners.

Mr. Mellor: Under the 1988 regulations, the concessionary television licence is available to retirement pensioners and disabled people who live in registered residential or nursing homes or in equivalent sheltered accommodation provided by a local authority or a housing association. Some 875,000 people currently benefit from the concession. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have no plans to make any further changes to the scheme.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister realise that the 44,000 pensioners who live in the city of Leicester and millions of others throughout the country, have had to suffer a dramatic decline in their living standards because of the Government's policies in the past 10 years? Does he accept that millions of them simply cannot afford to pay the cost of a television licence as well as all the other charges that they have to pay, including the poll tax? Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting on the Front Bench next to him, to see whether resources can be made available to implement a scheme for all pensioners? The Opposition believe that British pensioners have made a valuable contribution to society and deserve special treatment.

Mr. Mellor: The only problem with what the hon. Gentleman has said is that most of it is inaccurate. It is not true that pensioners' living standards have been falling in recent years—in fact, they have been growing. It is not true that every pensioner is in need. We know that many pensioners are well off—better off than those who would have to pay an extra amount in television licence fee if all pensioners were to receive the concession. The cost of the concession to other licence payers would be sufficient to take the television licence fee to more than £100. Despite the occasional weasel protestation from the Opposition Front Bench, they have never committed themselves to make that change, although I hope that one of them may stand up and clarify the point later.

Mr. McCrindle: Will the Minister look into what I think may be an anomaly in the regulations, whereby even if all the residents of a retirement home are of pensionable age they are not allowed the concessionary television licence if the articles of the home permit persons to be admitted to the home from age 55 even if none under retirement age are actually present?

Mr. Mellor: I think that everyone who has had to deal with this scheme has a passing regret that the scheme was ever devised, because it is of its very nature that lines must be drawn, thus creating anomalies and there are always some people just the other side of the line. We tried to tidy up the arrangements in 1988, but any tidying up still leaves hard cases. I regret what my hon. Friend has said and if that is the case I shall look at it, but it is of the nature of a scheme which was no doubt invented in a hurry and has caused a lot of trouble in the past 20 or 30 years.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Carrington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the voters of Hammersmith and Fulham are very grateful to the Government for having cut their community charge by £99? Does she also know that my constituents are outraged that the Labour-controlled council is spending community charge payers' money taking the Government to court to try to put the charge back up again? Will she join me in assuring the voters of Hammersmith and Fulham that if they vote for a Conservative-controlled council today the capping will stay and every community charge payer will be £99 better off tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Hammersmith and Fulham has for years been a very high-spending council. In 1987–88 it put the rates up by 127 per cent., and it has increased its budget significantly in recent years, so that this year it has set a charge of £424. The council has been capped because its budget was excessive—nearly £300 per adult over the standard spending assessment. The proposed cap gives a £99 reduction in the charge and, as my hon. Friend says, the

voters have every cause to be grateful to the Conservative Government. Labour-controlled councils cost you more and Conservative-controlled councils cost you less—and give a better service.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding Members on the Conservative Benches that they are still in Parliament.

Hon. Members: Where are the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Such interruptions take up a lot of time.

Mr. Kinnock: Several of my hon. Friends are out ensuring even bigger gains for the Labour party in today's elections.
When the Prime Minister first decided to impose the poll tax, did she realise that all across the country. regardless of which political party has control of councils, three times as many people would lose through the poll tax system as would gain from it?

The Prime Minister: If that is so, the enemy is not the community charge but high-spending Labour-controlled councils.

Mr. Kinnock: By now the Prime Minister knows very well that that is absolutely not true. Why does she not heed the words of her fellow Conservatives in places like Redbridge, where the large Conservative majority on the council passed a resolution calling upon the Government
to desist from misleading the public and to accept its own overriding share of responsibility for the level of community charge"?
Why does the Prime Minister not accept the inescapable truth of that statement from her Conservative colleagues and, just for once, come clean?

The Prime Minister: Because it is local councils which set the community charge—I trust that the right hon. Gentleman does not argue with that—and, as he knows, the top 50 overspenders are all Labour-controlled councils. [Interruption.] The top 50 overspenders are Labour-controlled or councils with no overall control. The difference is well exemplified by my authority which, after safety net, has a community charge of £268 but which is top in the education stakes. The Labour-controlled authority where the right hon. Gentleman lives has a community charge after the safety net of £408 and is 74th in educational performance.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Prime Minister realise that councillors of all parties, including her own, deeply resent the way in which she is trying to blame them for that which is her fault? Why will she not stand up and accept her own guilt?

The Prime Minister: Labour councillors are expected to take responsibility for the community charges which they set. If they cannot take responsibility, they should not be there. The fact is that under Labour people pay more for poorer services and for spending on things that they do not want. Conservative-controlled councils cost less and provide a better service.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that every kind of diplomatic pressure is being brought to bear to secure the release of the hostages in the middle east? Does she agree that it would be wholly wrong to enter into direct negotiations with terrorists or those who are their sponsors?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Obviously we very much want to get our hostages out and every day we are trying to do something to that end. May I point out that our embassy staff have remained in Beirut throughout a very dangerous and difficult period? One of their main purposes in being there is to try to find out any information that they can about any hostages.
Yes, we are using diplomatic contacts and pressure, but there are certain obstacles—for example, the fact that Iran broke off diplomatic relations with Britain over the Rushdie affair. We maintain a dialogue with Iran through our protecting power, which is Sweden, and through other contacts, and we shall continue to do that. We are also in touch with the Americans and, like them, we welcome the role that Iran and Syria played in securing the freedom of the two American hostages. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be wrong to make deals with those who take hostages and we shall not do that.

Mr. Allen: This is a statement. It is an abuse.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a matter which is of grave concern to the whole House.

The Prime Minister: It is wrong to make deals with those who take hostages. We shall not do that, and nor does the United States. The Archbishop of Canterbury has this morning reaffirmed his view that the Government's policy is sound and that one should never reward hostage-taking because to do so would encourage more of it.

Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister comment on the collusion which has been exposed today between the Tory-appointed chairman of Lothian health board and the Scottish health Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), for the purpose of suppressing until after today—and I quote:
to avoid political embarrassment to the chairman of the Scottish Conservative party
—the proposals of that hand-picked Tory health board to close four hospitals and to cut nursing and paramedical services in order to meet a deficit? In how many other corners of Britain are similar plans being suppressed until today is out of the road? Does the Prime Minister realise that the people of Scotland will never accept the dual role of the hon. Member for Stirling as Scottish health Minister and as chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland in manipulating the Health Service for shameless political ends?

The Prime Minister: I know of no such collusion whatsoever. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

for Scotland has done wonders for the Health Service in Scotland. There are more hospitals, more nurses, more doctors who are better paid and more patients being treated than ever before. It would be kind if people could pay a tribute to the Under-Secretary who has had a good deal to do with that.

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend, following her statement last Tuesday, give greater reassurance to the House that the Government will introduce positive and persuasive ideas for co-operative evolution in the European Community? Will she apply her undoubted leadership qualities to breed cohesion among Community leaders to ensure that the Community develops in a way that benefits everyone in Europe?

The Prime Minister: Yes. In the next few weeks we shall present ideas to make the institutions of the Community work better, on the basis of sovereign states working through national Parliaments and through the Council of Ministers in the Community in a way that benefits everyone. We shall also be introducing some different ideas for economic and monetary union—bearing in mind the approach of the House, which is not to move in anything like the Delors direction, as that would rob us of our powers. We think that our ideas would go further to ensure the co-operation of the Community states to benefit everyone.

Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister read the reports in today's newspapers about the Dudley man who was sent a bill for £1·91 poll tax for the last two days of his wife's life? Does she not see that that adds shame to the verdict of inefficiency and injustice that is being passed on the poll tax at the ballot box today? How powerful must the vote of protest against the poll tax be before the right hon. Lady will listen?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to that action by Dudley Labour council, which was not under an obligation to collect that sum from the deceased person's estate. [Interruption.] The relevant regulations provide only that sums owing may be recovered in the administration of the person's estate and from his executor or administrator. The Department of the Environment has been advising authorities that if a person dies shortly after 1 April they should consider writing off any outstanding amount. Furthermore, there is no doubt that in this case the cost of billing Mrs. Wood's estate exceeded the amount of the charge.

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether she has any information about local authorities which provide good services at reasonable cost, as opposed to those which provide poor services at extortionate cost?

The Prime Minister: I gladly comply. My hon. Friend will know the answer. It is Conservative councils which


give good value for money, cost less and give excellent services. It is Labour councils which cost people more, offer poorer services and often spend money on things that people do not want. The object lesson is clear—elect Conservative councils.

Mr. Eadie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Eadie: Will the Prime Minister sack the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—because he instructed Lothian health board to withhold its programme of hospital closures until after today's regional elections? Does she agree that that is typical of the hon. Member for Stirling and that the Scottish people have had enough of him because of his sustained attacks on their welfare?

The Prime Minister: No, I will pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the Health Service in Scotland for the excellent way in which the service is run, to the great benefit of most of the people in Scotland—who, I am sure, are much more satisfied with it than the hon. Gentleman is. I noted that the hon. Gentleman did not ask me a question about the community charge, possibly because the level of community charge set by Lothian is the highest of any authority in Scotland.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: I will take it in a minute.

Q.7 Mr. Gale: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Eadie: Should not the same strictures apply to the Prime Minister as apply to other Members of the House when they deal with matters not contained in the question?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible for what is said in answer to questions.

Mr. Gale: There is probably no one in the House who cares more than my right hon. Friend about the plight of the hostages in the middle east, but in the light of her earlier answer will she reaffirm that the only result of giving in to terrorists is, in the long run, the taking of more hostages, and that the only way forward must be through quiet diplomacy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. If we ever give in to blackmail it results in the taking of more hostages, which is why neither we nor the Americans will make deals of that kind. We both try and will continue to try, through our contacts, through the protecting power, and through other contacts that we have, to do everything possible to bring about the release of the hostages, about whom we are very concerned. We note that America has done no deals—it is through quiet contacts that her hostages have been released.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
TUESDAY 8 MAY AND WEDNESDAY 9 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Broadcasting Bill.
At the end of Wednesday, there will be a motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules (HC 251).
THURSDAY IO MAY—Completion of remaining stages of the Broadcasting Bill.
Motion to take note of EC document relating to general product safety. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY II MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I4 MAY—Private Members' motions.
Second Reading of the Pakistan Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the spring adjournment on Thursday 24 May until Tuesday 5 June.

[Thursday 10 May Relevant European Community Document 7480/89 General Product Safety.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 15-xxx (1988–89), para 1 and HC 11-xix (1989–90) para 1.]

Dr. Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider his treatment of Supply time? Why has such a lengthy time elapsed without the Opposition having a day on which we may choose a subject for debate? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman discuss that through the usual channels, because a backlog of Opposition Supply days appears to be building up and we do not want to have to take them all in a rush at the end of the Session?
Will the Leader of the House consider bringing forward without further delay the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which deal with the Government's vetoing of an arbitration award to the police in connection with their allowances, including their liability under poll tax regulations? We suspect that the Government have been hiding away this contentious issue until after today's local elections. Consideration of the order by the House is long overdue and I hope that it will come before us for debate before very much longer.
As the Leader of the House will be aware that independent forecasters are confidently predicting that next week there will be a further damaging rise in inflation, perhaps reaching double figures, will he arrange for an oral statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we can all question him about the damaging consequences for industry, the economy and mortgage rates of a further rise in the rate of inflation? The Leader of the House will have seen today's good news that John McCarthy and Brian Keenan have been seen recently and apparently are quite well. Sadly, there are no similar reports on Terry Waite and Mr. Jack Mann.
Will the Leader of the House consider—I emphasise the word "consider" because I know that these are difficult and delicate matters—whether we should have a statement next week from the Foreign Secretary? We just witnessed, in effect, a statement from the Prime Minister with no opportunity for hon. Members to ask questions, which was an abuse of our procedures. I do not regard that as an adequate way—[Interruption.] I am not raising this contentiously; I am asking the Leader of the House to consider whether it would help all hon. Members to have a statement next week. No one is suggesting that we should deal with terrorists or should reach behind-the-scenes agreements with people who kidnap our citizens, but even the Archbishop of Canterbury has today called for direct dialogue.
Whatever the circumstances, Governments of other countries have been more successful in obtaining the release of their citizens who have been taken as hostages than have our Government. A reconsideration of existing policy and approach may be helpful. Will the Leader of the House discuss with his colleagues whether we may have a statement next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bear in mind the first point made by the hon. Gentleman—it was perfectly reasonable for him to make it—for discussion through the usual channels.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the House may not have noticed that the matter to which he referred will be debated on the Adjournment on 14 May. In view of that—I believe that the prayer is out of time—I am not sure that another debate would be appropriate or necessary.
As to the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement on the retail prices index, that would be a departure from precedent wholly without justification. The RPI is announced once a month, and has been since I can remember. I shall not introduce that innovation.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I understand and share the pleasure at the news that Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Keenan are alive. I share his anxiety for good news of the other British hostages. I have been concerned with their welfare for many years. He understands, as he implied in his question, the difficulty of making a firm commitment to a statement on that matter.
The House must understand that there are special factors affecting the British position—for example, as the Prime Minister said, that the Government of Iran broke off diplomatic relations, following events of which the House is only too well aware. All these matters are under discussion, but I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman wants. I shall bring his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important for the House to have an early chance to debate the future development of the political institutions of the European Community? When might such a debate occur?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand my right hon. Friend's perfectly proper interest in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I shall bear his suggestion in mind, but I cannot give him an answer at the moment.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the National Health Service provision for Trent region, and on Leicestershire in particular? Is he


aware that an all-party group of Leicestershire Members of Parliament is this afternoon meeting the Secretary of State for Health to express their concern that the 3 per cent. cut in real terms, which is affecting our county when it needs more health provision, is resulting in swingeing cuts in hospitals, wards and other services, which is disgraceful and is reflected in far too many other parts of the country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Any request for such a debate would be most likely to succeed in the context of a debate on the Adjournment. I hope that, if the time comes, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find it possible to acknowledge that there has been an increase in real terms of some 40 per cent. in the total resources for the National Health Service.

Sir Alan Glyn: In view of the changes occurring in Lithuania and the Baltic states, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider having a very early debate about the pressure that the Soviet Government appear to be putting on the reunification of Germany?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise an early debate on that specific subject. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain acutely and continuously concerned about that matter.

Mr. James Wallace: Following the Prime Minister's detailed clarification of the liability or non-liability of the deceased to the poll tax in England, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make arrangements for the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the Dispatch Box next week to clarify the position in Scotland? Despite many invitations during Scottish questions, he has failed to give us an answer about the position in Scotland. That lack of clarity has meant that many constituents of mine and of my right hon. and hon. Friends are distressed because councils have exacted poll tax on deceased people. We would welcome clarification from the Secretary of State for Scotland; otherwise, we will again be seen to be treated as second-class citizens.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My impression of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is that he has a greater gift than almost anyone to make the position crystal clear in answer to questions. I shall draw to his attention the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that it was not until the spillover Session last year that we had a debate on the defence White Paper. Will he reassure the House that this year there will be an earlier debate, perhaps shortly after the Whitsun recess?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend that specific assurance, although I can assure him that I will consider the timing of such a debate with as much sympathy as his request deserves.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a statement on the reports over the weekend that the House of Commons Commission will consider the salaries of staff, especially those in the Refreshment Department? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have a bill for a meal last night in the Dining Room of the

House of Commons? It is for £5·40 for a three-course meal, which included half a litre of red wine. Is it not improper that hon. Members can eat meals at transport café prices on the back of cheap labour hired by the House of Commons Refreshment Department? Is it not fair to say that every Member of Parliament would willingly pay £1 or £2 more for a meal to ensure that such people are paid a proper wage for doing such important work in the House of Commons?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are proper and established mechanisms for staff of the House and for trade unions to put their grievances arid concerns about pay, and for those to be properly considered by the management. The House of Commons Commission will be considering some aspects of that question at its next meeting.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the parties to the Montreal protocol are meeting in London at the end of June, and that one of the specific items that they will be discussing is the depletion of the ozone layer? Is he further aware that early-day motion 932 calls clear attention to the need to phase out methyl chloroform?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to propose to the European Council of Ministers on 7th June that a phase out of methyl chloroform, an ozone-depleting chemical, be negotiated by the European Economic Community at the London meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol, on 20th to 29th June 1990.]
Will he convey that message to his Cabinet colleagues so that the Government can take a leading role in having that and other ozone-depleting chemicals phased out internationally and as a matter of urgency?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am aware of the meeting to which my hon. Friend has referred. I remind him that the Government have reached a common position with our European Community partners on the proposal to phase out methyl chloroform that was put forward during negotiations.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Norwegian Government have made clear their intention to seek the lifting of the moratorium on commercial whaling when the International Whaling Commission meets in July? Does he share the great concern of all hon. Members and of people outside the House that that should be proposed by the Norwegians, who previously had a good reputation for environmental care—although not in respect of whaling? Will he ensure that any Ministers who attend the United. Nations conference in Bergen next month will protest volubly on behalf of the House and the British people? Can we please have an early debate on the conservation of whale stocks, both in the north Atlantic and the Antarctic?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the hon. Member and the House will need no reassuring of the Government's real and continuing concern and interest in this matter, not least in the light of the request made recently by Norway. There can be no question of lifting the moratorium on commercial whaling until the scientific advice is clearly that whale stocks can be sustained at healthy levels. The Government consider that the International Whaling Commission must develop a new management procedure


to guarantee that there will be no repeat of over-exploitation. That is the extremely cautious and concerned way in which the Government will approach the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to read the report on the front page of the Daily Mail about the extremely disturbing series of events that it is alleged are taking place in a prison in Nottingham? These events will be of enormous concern to my constituents. Is he aware that the Home Secretary has already started an investigation into these allegations? When that investigation has been completed, will my right hon. and learned Friend make time available for a statement on the results of it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand my hon. Friend's concern with these matters. I hope that he is reassured by the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is conducting the investigation to which my hon. Friend has referred. I will bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the view that my hon. Friend has expressed, which underlines the gravity of the matter.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When the Leader of the House draws to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland the valid point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), will he emphasise that local authorities in Scotland are beginning to issue 14-day final notices of poinding and warrant sales to the executors of the estates of people who have been deceased for a year? For example, in my constituency, the widow of a skipper who was lost at sea last year, has been threatened with that course of action for a sum of £12·16. Do not we need clarification of this ruling?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House understands that these matters have to be considered with due sympathy and consideration for the circumstances of the people concerned and with due regard to the legal provisions. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the example that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

Mr. Simon Burns: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider helping to unravel some of the confusion about the unfairness and the punitive nature of the roof tax by arranging a debate on the subject to help the Opposition explain their position?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My deep anxiety to unravel the difficulties of the Opposition does not extend as far as organising an important debate such as that at such short notice.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Leader of the House acknowledged, in reply to the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), the importance of institutional developments in the European Community. Therefore, will he consider reverting to the previous practice of having oral statements after the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, now generally called the General Affairs Council of the Communities, particularly as from now until June, and possibly until December, the Council will be preparing the way for constitutional discussions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I understand it, that question and the possible answer to it need to be considered afresh in relation to each meeting of the General Affairs Council. I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's point is brought to the attention of the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Nigel Forman: In view of the great importance to many of my constituents of the cost and conditions of travelling on rail commuter services in and out of the centre of London, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider organising an early statement—or better still, a debate—in which it may be possible for the House to discuss rail commuter services, especially in view of the threat reported in the press today that the price of rail services may be going up by a great deal more than the rate of inflation, which causes great concern to my constituents?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As a Member who also represents a number of London commuters, I understand my hon. Friend's concern with the matter. I do not want to vouch for the truth of the rumour to which he has referred—indeed, on the contrary—but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware of the growing support in the House, as evidenced again last night, for dealing with Northern Ireland legislation other than by Orders in Council, where possible. Will Parliament be given an opportunity in the near future to declare its intention on the issue, so that Northern Ireland might be governed by the same seamless robe of government rather than the machinations of the Northern Ireland Office?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told the hon. Gentleman, I think more than once, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is only too willing to consider his concerns and those of other Northern Ireland Members about the procedures for handling legislation and to consider any constructive proposals. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House share my concern at the announcement this morning that those responsible for illegal ballot-rigging in elections to the executive of the Transport and General Workers Union are now not likely to be identified or brought to justice? As the House is concerned about the links with that union and leading members of the Opposition, will he give an undertaking that there will be an urgent investigation into the affairs of the TGWU at an early date after the Whitsun recess?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure about the status of the news to which my hon. Friend refers. My impression was that the inquiry and investigations were still continuing. I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Ms. Majorie Mowlam: I do not want to bother the Leader of the House again by asking when we shall have a debate on the House of Fraser. I am not sure that even he can come up with another way of saying no or yes without giving a definitive answer, but a response would be appreciated.
I ask, however, for an urgent debate on directors' pay. I am sure that he is aware that it is running at four times the rate of inflation. Many newspapers are carrying the story, and there is general public outrage at the 33 per cent. average increase in directors' pay. These increases are not, as one hon. Member has suggested, in line with the profits of companies, because the profits of many companies are diminishing. This is an outrage and a bad example. I ask for a debate so that the Government can join the Labour party and the CBI in condemning the increases.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I could make a link between the point raised by the hon. Lady and the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), and hope that the Opposition will take advantage of their forthcoming Supply day to raise the matter. More seriously, I share the hon. Lady's concern, although not to the extent or in the language expressed by her, about the course of the necessary curtailment of the growth of unit labour costs and the necessary control of our effective competitiveness alongside profitability. Those in charge of companies and businesses should take account of the need for moderation for themselves as well as for those whom they employ.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the deputy Prime Minister provide time for a debate on the preservation of open spaces in towns in Northern Ireland? The matter is urgent because, for instance, the people in Hollywood, in my constituency, will shortly be deprived for ever of the opportunity of using the old gasworks site at Kinnegar, Hollywood as a recreation ground. Secondly, decisions are being made in private about the seafront at Bangor, which was, disgracefully, turned into a car park. I understand that plans are being made for property speculators to build on part of the site.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not altogether sure whether the House of Commons is the best place in which to disclose those undoubtedly important details about the problems with which my hon. Friend is concerned. I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Since the Leader of the House cannot find sufficient time for debates and statements, is he aware that that conflicts with the statement that he has made about the holidays? Does he understand that the Whitsun holiday that he has just announced is probably the longest in the 20 years since I have been a Member of this place? Is he aware also that, when he got his job, Tory Members in particular were cheering him to the echo? I was puzzled to know why. I think that I have now found the answer.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I only hope that on that point the hon. Gentleman will join the rest of the House in cheering me to the echo.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers his response to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for more time for Opposition debates, will he consider imposing two conditions—first, that Labour Members should turn up for them and, secondly, that the Opposition should say what they would do if they were in power? Is it not the greatest con on the British electorate to promise the earth and not say how the money would be raised?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend draws attention to two entirely legitimate criticisms of the Opposition. It is beyond my power to impose conditions on the Opposition, much though I would wish to do so.

Mr. Harry Barnes: May we discuss the Government's abuse and misuse of statistics and parliamentary procedure? It has taken me more than a month and two points of order to obtain an answer from the Department of the Environment on the breakdown of local government finance. The original estimate was that 50 per cent. would come from local government grant, 25 per cent. from the national business rate and 25 per cent. from the poll tax, but the actual figures are strangely close—48 per cent., 26 per cent. and 26 per cent.—and that has been made possible only because they take into account the aggregate external finance figure, to which extra grants have been added. We should have a debate on how the Government are using figures.
That arrangement is dubious because, if the Government were correct and the poll tax was only 26 per cent. of the total, the Government would have no case against the levels that are being charged, because they are in line with their own predictions. Therefore, poll tax levels must be due to the legislation, not to local authorities.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am astonished and baffled by the hon. Gentleman's point. He complains about the accuracy of three figures—50 per cent., 25 per cent. and 25 per cent.—emerging as 48 per cent., 26 per cent. and 26 per cent. If, in any examination that he sat, he could achieve a 96 per cent. accuracy rate in respect of all three parts, he would be congratulating himself.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he will have the support of Conservative Members in his decision not to have a debate or a special statement next week on the hostage affair, because it might exacerbate a delicate situation? But will he give an undertaking that the Government will take every opportunity next week to continue to make it clear to the Iranian Government that no British Government could reward terrorism by making any bargain for the release of the hostages, and that, if the Iranian Government want to become part of the civilised world again, and to become acceptable and trustworthy, they have only one course—to make sure that all the hostages are released immediately and unconditionally.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear, as Ministers have often done, that it would never be right to reward hostage taking, and my hon. and learned Friend is entirely right to draw attention to that matter. On the other hand, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also made clear, we welcome the role that Iran and Syria have played in securing the freedom of two of the American hostages. We shall continue to encourage such a response in the most effective way that we can.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Leader of the House must be aware of the deep concern that many British people have about the potential danger of any sale of arms to Iraq. Early-day motion 869 points out that the Iraqi Government have practised genocide against the Kurdish people, have an appalling and disgraceful human rights record and that any trade with Iraq, be it direct sales from Britain, credit that is made available to the Iraqi


Government, or diplomatic recognition and support for Iraq, in effect supports Iraq's human rights record and its attacks on the Kurdish people.
[That this House believes that the Government of Iraq has an appalling record on human rights and that it has used chemical and biological weapons against Kurdish people; believes that it is inconsistent to ban the sale of weapons or weapons material to the Government of Iraq whilst allowing credit and trade; and therefore demands a ban on all trade with Iraq.]
In those circumstances, may we have a debate in the House on our relationship with Iraq so that those of us who believe strongly that there should be no trade with Iraq while it continues its murderous practices against the Kurdish people, using chemical and biological weapons against them, can argue that all trade should be stopped to show that we are serious in our condemnation of the Iraqi Government's abuses of human rights?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No one hesitates to condemn the abuse of human rights in Iraq, as in any other country, and the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to that. He should also acknowledge that the guidelines on the sale of defence materials to Iraq remain in exactly the same state as they were when they were originally drawn up in the course of the Gulf conflict.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made clear about a month ago, cutting off all trade with Iraq would serve only to create a satisfaction among our industrial competitors and the loss of jobs in Britain. That is not a sensible thing to allow, however much one may abhor the abuse of human rights.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange a debate soon on early-day motion 854?
[That this House is appalled at Ealing Council's failure to pay statutory maintenance grants to many students for the past two terms; notes that those same students enter a third term without payment of grants due to them from that council despite repeated assurances that the grants will he paid in full at an early date; notes the highly hypocritical opposition of the Ealing Labour Council to interest free student loans as proposed by Her Majesty's Government whilst at the same time forcing students from the borough of Ealing to take out bank loans at high interest rates to pay for board, lodging and other essentials; and demands immediate action from Ealing Council to rectify the deplorable situation in which it has placed so many people who deserve better.]
In that motion, I draw attention to the fact that many higher education students in my constituency and across the whole borough of Ealing have not had their grants paid by Ealing's Labour-controlled council for three terms. Many of those students are in total penury and are having to make use of bank loans at very high interest rates, as a consequence of the actions of a council that opposes student loans at a zero interest rate. Can something be done for those students, who are suffering greatly at the hands of the Labour party?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told my hon. Friend more than once, he is assiduous in drawing to the attention of the House the shortcomings of Labour-controlled Ealing

council. My hon. Friend has raised the matter before, and it has been investigated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Most outstanding grants have now been paid and steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is closely monitoring progress, and he will continue to follow up every individual case that my hon. Friend refers to him.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his attitude in respect of the whole Iraqi question? As certain persons have now been brought before the courts in respect of the so-called supergun, that matter is now sub judice. Initially, that was not the case, yet the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refused to answer questions that even you, Mr. Speaker, ruled were not sub judice. Will the Leader of the House refer that matter to the Select Committee on Procedure to consider?
No Secretary of State, in either a Conservative or Labour Government, should be allowed to refuse to answer questions just because a case is before the courts. The House has not been getting the answers that it should receive, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will seriously consider my remarks. I am not raising a matter of self-interest—it is one which affects all right hon. and hon. Members.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not doubt for a moment the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. Circumstances arise when cases that might lead to prosecutions require investigation by the appropriate authorities. In the case in question, Customs and Excise is the independent authority responsible for conducting investigations and for bringing prosecutions. It could be equally embarrassing to the process of investigation as to the process of prosecution, for the matter to be questioned at large in the House.
I do not exclude interrogation of the circumstances in the House at a later stage, when the proceedings have been brought to an end, but there is a real need to be discreet, in the extent to which the House pursues matters that are the subject of investigation with a view to criminal proceedings. One cannot give as clear-cut an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question as he implies. I have examined that matter and will do so again, but at this stage I cannot give an undertaking to refer it to the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. John Greenway: The shadow Leader of the House asked for a rather narrow debate on the subject of the police housing allowance. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there would be merit in a wide-ranging debate on the police in general, in the light of recent reports about policing? Also, will he investigate a report in The Sun today that a young police officer injured in the recent poll tax riot in Trafalgar square has now died? Will he join me in conveying the sympathies of the House to that police officer's family and relatives and in condemning those who incited violence at the demonstration in question?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have indeed seen that report, and I join my hon. Friend in sending sympathy to the family of the police officer concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to note that that is endorsed by hon.


Members on both sides of the House. I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion of a debate on the wider aspects of policing at some later date.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for an early debate on local authority finance? Would that give the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) a chance to expand on his speech in the House two years ago last December on the Local Government Finance Bill? When he was asked about Labour party policy, he said that he was coming to it, and later he grew really bold and said that he was coming to it soon. Is this not probably the most delayed second coming in the history of mankind?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in these matters and commend him on the way in which he has raised them.

Mr. Michael Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the 16,500 aerospace workers in Lancashire fully appreciate that their future depends on the Government's strong economic policies and the orders that result therefrom for the defence industry. They are anxious to hear from the Government about the outstanding matters on the radar for the European fighter aircraft. Can my right hon. and learned Friend offer an early prospect of an announcement on that issue?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friends in government are well aware of the interests of his constituents in this important matter and will endeavour to offer further information when it is available.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that we voted against the

European social charter. May we have a debate about the implication that, despite our having vetoed the charter itself, many directives could come from the Commission as a result of majority voting which would be likely to prevent us from having certain employment, social and trade union legislation? Can we have a debate to make it clear to the European Parliament and the Commission that hon. Members on both sides feel that the matter is of great importance?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. He will recall that, at successive meetings of the European Council, the Government drew attention to our opposition to the social charter formulated as a whole and made it plain that each component part which may or may not come forward in the consequent action programme would need to be scrutinised closely and carefully, in accordance with the procedures of this House and other places.

Sir Ian Lloyd: In view of the characteristically churlish, ungrateful and ungenerous remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the dates for the Whitsun recess, may I express thanks, not only on my behalf but for all hon. Members, for the response of my right hon. and learned Friend to the suggestion made some time ago that one day at Whitsun is worth two at any other time of year? If the hon. Gentleman chooses to come back in the middle of Whitsun, could the lights be put on so that he may bask in his own reflected glory?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Subject to the availability of the lights at such a time, I shall certainly take account of the generous, gracious and encouraging remarks of my hon. Friend.

Points of Order

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister, not for the first time, read at some length from what was obviously a carefully prepared statement. The issue concerns British hostages in Iran and is an important one. There has been some discussion through the usual channels about whether it should be raised in the House, and about the most helpful way to proceed.
First of all, it is an abuse of the House for the Prime Minister to use Question Time to read lengthy prepared statements on important subjects on which hon. Members are precluded from asking questions. It is an abuse to read out long prepared statements of that kind.
Secondly, it is a totally unsatisfactory way for the House to deal with business, particularly sensitive and controversial issues that are not party political—certainly this is not a party-political issue. We are told by Conservative Members that such matters should not be raised at all. One of the Prime Minister's supporters repeated that argument this afternoon, but, at the same time, that hon. Gentleman and others seemed to endorse the behaviour of the Prime Minister. In those circumstances, the House gets the worst of all worlds.
Statements are made that cannot be questioned, and subsequently we are told that statements cannot be made to the House on which Opposition Members or Conservative Back-Bench Members could question Government policy. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter, to which we should give some thought. Perhaps you will let us have your thoughts in due course.

The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take up one thing mentioned by the shadow Leader of the House? He said that twice a week, regularly, week after week, the Prime Minister faces questions from this House, sometimes dealing with sensitive and non-party political matters. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the importance of her answers to a whole range of questions of that sensitivity being carefully thought out and considered in advance.

Mr. John Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it further to it?

Mr. Greenway: Yes, it is.
Is not it churlish of the shadow Leader of the House to criticise the Prime Minister's performance at the Dispatch Box bearing in mind that she, unlike most other leaders of European Community member states, stood at that Dispatch Box and answered questions for more than an hour only on Tuesday?

Dr. Cunningham: Since this is important, we might as well get the record straight. I was not criticising what the Prime Minister said, or her conduct in the matter. I was criticising what I regard as an abuse of the procedures of the House—an entirely different point. I was saying that it

was an abuse of Prime Minister's Question Time. I made no comment on the content of what the Prime Minister said.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the House will allow me to deal with this matter. I am not responsible for questions that are asked. I have no idea what an hon. Member with an open question on the Order Paper is likely to ask, so I cannot be held responsible for what the Prime Minister says in reply.
Earlier in the week, we had a point of order deprecating such questions but perhaps one of the bonuses of open questions is that they enable questions on important matters that have occurred recently to be asked and answered. Whether there should be a fuller statement so that the Prime Minister, or the Minister concerned, can be properly questioned is a different matter and not one for me.

Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This relates to open questions and the answers to them. I appreciate that you are not responsible for the answers that the Prime Minister gives, but I know that you are anxious that as many hon. Members as possible should be able to participate in Prime Minister's Question Time and, therefore, the length of her answers may sometimes be relevant to how many hon. Members can get in.
You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, today that, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on the Health Service in Scotland, the Prime Minister, as well as answering that question, gave a further answer relating to the poll tax—in answer to a question that had not been asked. I know that you do not have responsibility for the content of answers, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that you would deprecate the lengthening of the Prime Minister's answers when she gives wholly irrelevant answers to questions that have not been asked.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a good practice to answer questions that have not been asked.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I reckon that we did fairly well this afternoon. We normally get down to Question 6, but today we got down to Question 7.

Mr. Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Why?

Mr. Lawrence: Could you kindly confirm, Mr. Speaker, that what the Prime Minister did this afternoon was certainly not an abuse of the procedures of the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely correct. When we have open questions and the Prime Minister answers a question that she may not have been aware she would be asked, it is equally open to other hon. Members who are called subsequently to put further questions to her on that same matter. That that seldom happens, of course, is not a matter for me.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance as a new Member and on behalf of many people who watch our proceedings on television or in other places who may be confused. Am I right to believe that, just as it is in order for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to read from a script when asking questions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has to answer questions on so many different subjects, can have information in front of her so she can read from it to ensure greater accuracy?

Mr. Speaker: Some tolerance has always been given—the hon. Member is not all that new—to those on the Front Benches, particularly to Ministers answering from the Dispatch Box, in the interests of accuracy. But quotations from Back Benchers and others are not allowed. "Paraphrasing" is the word.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: But, Mr. Speaker, would you deprecate the art of using planted questions? It seems clear from some answers given recently, especially last Tuesday and again today, that Conservative Members were asking questions on two topics to which the Prime Minister had long answers. It is clear that there was collaboration at some level.
Perhaps the Prime Minister, through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, might follow the example of the Leader of the House, who today answered 20-odd questions in a little over 25 minutes—giving clean, courteous, short, if muddled, answers—thereby enabling us to ask more questions of her.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?

Mr. Banks: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: Before I took the Chair in 1983 I recollect hearing, in my previous incarnation, about planted questions, but I do not know what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is talking about in that context these days.

Mr. Banks: Has your attention been drawn to the reported remarks yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he referred to vegetarianism as

an unnatural thing and somehow against the teachings in the Bible? I and others know that you, Mr. Speaker, are the most eminent vegetarian in the House. Was it not folly for even a Minister to suggest that somehow Mr. Speaker would indulge in any unnatural practices whatever? How do you intend to deal with the Minister? Do you think that there might be a case for examining whether he has finally caught mad cow disease?

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that I want to get involved in that. I have dealt with the matter to the extent that I have sent a private letter—the contents of which, of course, I could not disclose—to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food giving him a quotation from Romans, which I think should put the matter in its proper perspective.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I crave the indulgence of the House to refer to the fact that it has been pointed out that yesterday I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to do something that makes no sense, perhaps not for the first time? I am reported as asking:
Will he give an undertaking that there will be a single dual carriageway built … between Hawick and Carlisle?"—[Official Report, 2 May 1990; Vol. 171, c. 1022.]
I wish to make it clear that I uttered those words and that Hansard has not made a mistake. The mistake was in my head and I wish, for the avoidance of any future doubt, to delete the word "dual." I sought to ask him to make a single carriageway the length of the road between Carlisle and Hawick, and I am grateful for the opportunity to put that right.

Mr. Speaker: That can probably be permitted.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we should not worry about made cow disease but about mad heifer disease.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman said it.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 4020/90, 4021/90 and 4022/90 on marketing certain plants and plant propagating material be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 5 April this year my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General informed the House that the Government intend to make it possible to hand over to the Commonwealth of Australia, as a gift, one of the two vellum copies of the Act of Parliament that brought Australia into being as an independent nation. The introduction of that Bill on ANZAC day last week was a first step towards the fulfilment of that undertaking.
The public record copy of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is already in Australia on loan. The effect of the Bill will be to release that copy from the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958, thereby enabling Her Majesty's Government to accede to the Australian Government's request that it should remain there permanently.
There are two copies of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 which were printed on vellum. One is held in the record office of the House of Lords as the official record of parliamentary proceedings. The other is the Public Record Office copy, which has been on loan to Australia for the past two years. The Act established the framework for the Commonwealth of Australia, including the powers of its Government and judiciary, and its provisions have remained relatively unchanged since its enactment.
The Act was drafted by Australians and endorsed at the time by a majority of Australians and by each of the Australian Parliaments and Governments. The Australians already hold a duplicate original of the royal proclamation, signed by Queen Victoria, that brought the Act into force on 1 January 1901, and a duplicate original of the commission of Royal Assent to the Act, also signed by Queen Victoria. The provision of that copy of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act on a permanent basis will, therefore, complete the trinity of documents which, taken together, represent Australia's birth certificate as a nation. Far from being a dimly remembered historic document, the Act is regarded by Australians as the embodiment of Australian nationhood, containing provisions that remain as relevant now as they were 90 years ago.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Does the Act include anything about the rights of aborigines in Australia? This matter concerns them and many other people in Australia, particularly in relation to what has happened recently. If it does not, what is the Government's attitude to that?

The Solicitor-General: I shall seek to answer the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
A great deal of interest has been shown in the document by the Australian people. Since the public record copy of the Act was loaned to Australia for the bicentennial in

1988, more than 2 million visitors have had the opportunity to see it on display in Parliament house in Canberra. There can be no doubt of the depth of feeling that lies behind the request to hold a copy of the Act permanently.
The Government recognise that the arguments against the disposal of any of our public records are also strong. Public records are an important part of this country's heritage and form an integral and unique collection which goes back a long way. We would not lightly agree to disperse material from our national archive. But in view of the special circumstances of the Australian Government's request, including the fact that the people of Australia have become accustomed to having easy access to the document and minds are presently focused on old ties between our countries, the Government have decided that it would be right to find a way to offer the document to the Commonwealth of Australia as a gift, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General so informed the House, by written answer, on 5 April. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has now written to Mr. Hawke offering a gift of the document, and that offer has been warmly accepted.
As things stand, the copy of the Act is a public record selected for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958. The provisions of that Act do not allow for gifts or permanent loans of records to be made. The Bill will make it possible for the document to be released to the Commonwealth of Australia by providing that this vellum copy of the Act alone ceases to be among the United Kingdom public records to which the Public Records Act applies. The Bill has been drafted in such a way as to make it clear that this change in statute refers, and is intended to refer, to this one document alone. The preamble refers to Her Majesty's Government's willingness to
advise Her Majesty to accede
to the Australian Government's request.
The Bill will not technically make the gift but will rather make it possible, subject to parliamentary approval for the course of action that the Bill proposes. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that there will be an ideal opportunity formally to hand over the document when my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President visits Australia on official business this summer. To make this possible, the Bill must proceed rapidly so that Royal Assent may be obtained before the summer recess. It is also desirable that the Bill should come into force without the usual two-month interval after Royal Assent.The abbreviated timetable for the Bill will ensure that the proper arrangements are in place in time for my right hon. and learned Friend's visit.
I am looking to my left to see whether I can answer the question of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) before I conclude my initial remarks. It may be that, with some manual assistance from my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), I shall be in a position to do so.
The position, as I expected—but I am grateful to have confirmation of it—is that the 1900 Act to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not, as far as we know, refer to the aboriginal people. If, as a result of further investigations, I receive any contra-indication during the debate, I will let the House and the hon. Gentleman know.
This short Bill will make possible a gesture which means a great deal to the people of the Commonwealth of


Australia, a nation with close and long-lasting legislative and constitutional links with our Parliament. We at Westminster should welcome this opportunity to recognise the Australian commitment to parliamentary democracy, which endures within a framework that the 1900 Act set up. The gift of a copy of the Act is a symbol of the history, heritage and traditions that we share and of our friendship, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Morris: I thank the Solicitor-General for introducing the Bill and, on behalf of Opposition Members, warmly endorse its purpose. It is right also to thank my right hon. Friend and namesake the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who, if not the father of this Bill—because it is the Lord Chancellor's and the Attorney-General's—is at least its stepfather. In that he was fully supported by hon. Members of all parties in the House, and the Bill is the result of his sterling work as chairman of the parliamentary ANZAC group, and with the assistance and co-operation of many people including, in particular, Mr. Doug McLelland, the Australian high commissioner in London. The House knows that once my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe has a bone between his teeth he never lets go, and it was gracious and right of Mr. Bob Hawke, the Australian Prime Minister, to thank both the Government and my right hon. Friend for their part in bringing into effect a hitherto unique event.
Mr. Hawke set out his country's case succinctly in his article in The Times of 22 February this year. I noticed from the tenor of the Solicitor-General's remarks that he had read this closely: many of the phrases that he used were borrowed from that article, perhaps without acknowledgment. He said:
Australia is a young country, yet it is fast developing a sense of history.
He said that the Act which we are passing to Australia as a gift is not
a dry and dusty piece of paper, but a … document which continues to have a direct and immediate impact on a vast range of Australia's affairs.
The constitution embodied in the Act has changed little since 1900. It is appropriate, therefore, that the handing over of Australia's birth certificate should coincide with the year of the centenary of the Australian Federation conference. As Mr. Hawke wrote:
The constitution set us on a path of peaceful and ungrudging disengagement from the protection of our British founders, and led to the irresistible emergence of an independent and self-reliant Australia.
I think that the word "self-reliant" describes most of the Australians whom we know.
Together with the duplicate originals, referred to by the Solicitor-General, of the royal proclamation bringing the Act into force on I January 1901 and the Royal Assent, both signed by Queen Victoria, the public records original of the Act—one of only two—will comprise, as Mr. Hawke said, and as quoted by the Solicitor-General, "a trinity of documents" which Mr. Hawke described in the article in The Times as his nation's "birth certificate". A big country needs a birth certificate in three parts.
It would be churlish of me to comment unduly on the difficulties that were placed in the way of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and his supporters from all parties, but the letter from the Cabinet Secretary

would provide unchallengeable material for those who write the scripts for the "Yes Minister" programme. It is right to say:
All's well that ends well",
and I am sure that the cutting of the Gordian knot to overcome the difficulties owes a great deal to the Lord Chancellor who, I suspect, may have said in the face of the paraded and apparently insuperable difficulties, "Up with this I will not put."
Of course, in recent years our relationship with Australia, particularly in economic matters, has changed. Not unnaturally, Australia has become more and more involved in its Pacific and Asian role. Nevertheless, the steady flow of young people who come from the other end of the world to spend a few years with us and in the rest of Europe, before returning to their own land, continues unabated. I suspect that the flow has increased. In the summer months the accent of Australia's young is heard in all sorts of activity, supporting themselves before moving on to other parts of Europe. What always strikes me is the warmth of their welcome and their closeness to people wherever they find temporary work. I wish all those young people happiness and joy during their stay with us. When they go home, having seen much of this part of the world, they will return with their ancestors' ties re-established on the basis of their own experience.
We noted with pleasure that 2 million visitors have seen the Act while it was on temporary display. We noted, too, the intention to give it pride of place in the museum of political history planned for the old Parliament house in Canberra.
I had two questions to ask but one has already been answered by the Solicitor-General. First, what thought has been given by the Government to possible requests from other Commonwealth countries? It seems inevitable that such requests will be forthcoming. My second question was about how Australia and the Government would mark the unique occasion of the formal passing over of responsibility for the Act, despite the fact that it is in Australia now. I welcome very much the announcement that the opportunity will be taken to pass over the Act when the Lord President visits Australia. That will be appropriate. I am sure the Opposition will seek to expedite the passing of the Bill to ensure that it receives Royal Assent in good time.

Mr. Churchill: Let me congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)—I almost said "my right hon. Friend", because he is the friend of so many of us on both sides of the House—on conceiving and promoting a Bill which will ensure that, for the first time, Australia has one of the two original copies of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. It is amazing that that was not done at the time, and that 90 years should have been allowed to pass before Australians could have a copy of their birth certificate. However, as the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, it is a case of "better late than never". The Bill will receive a warm welcome in all quarters of the House. It is appropriate that our sister legislature in Canberra should possess one of the two original documents.
Last week I had the privilege of visiting the beaches of Gallipoli on ANZAC day, on the 75th anniversary of the Dardanelles landings, with which my family was


associated in no insignificant manner. There I had the opportunity of meeting some of the British and Australian veterans of that great campaign, and the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke. I can tell the House that the fellow feelings between our countries are as strong today as they have ever been.
It was at Gallipoli on that immortal day that the young men of Australia and New Zealand, by their deeds and sacrifice, demonstrated their nationhood. If the document that we are arranging to be passed over to Australia marked their birth certificate, it was ANZAC day on the Gallipoli beaches that represented their coming of age.
Let me express to the people of Australia and New Zealand the gratitude of the people of Britain for the courage and the sacrfice of the ANZACs, who fought at Britain's side in two world wars. This historic document goes from the House to the people of Australia with our gratitude and affection.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful for the kind references made to me in earlier speeches. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) were extremely generous.
This important Bill—which naturally I warmly welcome—has an interesting history. As the House knows, it succeeds a Bill that I drafted to secure for the people of Australia one of the two original copies of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. As has been explained by the Solicitor-General, one of the original copies is the British Parliament's own record of its proceedings; the other is the property of the Public Record Office.
My Bill, which would give the people of Australia an oiginal copy of their constitution Act, was given its First Reading on 12 February. The measure had its origin in the visit to Britain last June of the Australian Prime Minister, when Bob Hawke addressed the ANZAC group of hon. Members and peers in a Committee Room. He spoke with deep feeling, clear sincerity and eloquence about the importance to the Australian people of having an original copy of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. He asked me, as chairman of the meeting and of the ANZAC group, to do whatever was possible to secure a copy for Australia.
After many representations from Canberra, over a long period, Bob Hawke had also raised the issue with the British Prime Minister during his visit last June; but it remained unresolved due to problems in meeting Australia's request which, to the British Government, seemed insurmountable. He had been told that the Act's importance to Australia was widely recognised in Britain but that, although the Government here had sympathy with Australia's position, no way of meeting it could be found.
Having promised on behalf of the ANZAC group that we would do our best to help, I sought to find out more about the problems that stood in the way of acceding to Australia's request. I did so by writing to Sir Robin Butler, Secretary to the Cabinet and head of the home civil service,

who I knew to have been involved in exchanges about attempts to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the problems involved.
In a letter of 3 August last from Sir Robin, I was told that to give Australia the British Parliament's copy would require an unprecedented affirmative vote of both Houses, and that to allow the Public Record Office's copy to be permanently loaned, or given as a gift, would require legislation. Sir Robin went on to say, in his letter to me, that to give Australia either of the two copies would lead to claims from other Commonwealth countries for copies of their own constitution Acts, and that in the case of the Public Record Office's copy it would be
inconsistent with the Public Records Act since, as a result of passing the document out of our jurisdiction, the Lord Chancellor would have no effective control over the facilities for its preservation and use as he is required to have by the terms of the Act.
He predicted "spirited resistance" if the copy held by the Clerk of the Parliaments was released, and told me that the Government had proposed to the Australians that they should have an "Exemplification of the Act" of which he said:
The Government considers that this would be entirely suitable for display in the way proposed by the Australian Government and, in view of the difficulties in the way of making either of the original copies of the Act available to Australia on a long-term basis, hopes that they can be persuaded to give further consideration to this proposal.
Although discouraging, the Cabinet Secretary's letter was helpful to me in summarising the range and nature of the problems then preventing Ministers from meeting Australia's request for an original copy of what has been described in The Times as its Magna Carta. At least I now knew that legislation would be necessary to break the deadlock and that it would need not only to take account of all that Sir Robin Butler said to me in his letter, but also spirited parliamentary support.
The drafting of my Bill took particularly into account the Cabinet Secretary's point about the "floodgates" effect of meeting Australia's request. This was achieved by use of a preamble to the Bill and Sir Robin's point about the preservation and use of the document was also met—not that I had any doubt that an original copy of their own constitution Act would be treated any less carefully or with less concern for its long-term preservation by Australians that it would be here in the United Kingdom. The list of sponsors of my Bill, when it was published, also made it clear that the Bill had the support of senior representatives of every party in the House and that, given a free vote on the legislation, there could be no shadow of doubt that it would be approved.
After publication of my Bill, I had discussions about it with the Lord Chancellor in the company of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who is a vice-chairman of the ANZAC group. We were both deeply impressed by Lord Mackay's concern to move speedily, when consulting about the Bill, all the interests involved; and we were completely satisfied that he would help in every way possible. Lord Mackay is a firm, true and enduring friend of Australia, and quite clearly, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) agrees, today's outcome owes much to his readiness to look anew and positively at the case for the legislation that we were seeking. With all my fellow sponsors, I am most grateful to him, and to the Leader of the House of Commons for all his help at a subsequent meeting with me.
His Excellency Doug McClelland, the Australian high commissioner in London and his staff at Australia house, were continually helpful to me and my fellow sponsors. They have both my appreciation and congratulations on the now successful outcome of all their efforts to resolve a problem that has been with them and their predecessors for years. They can take pride both in what they have achieved and in the very high regard in which they are held on both sides of both Houses of Parliament here.
Doug McClelland may remember that, in jocular conversation with Bob Hawke after his request to the ANZAC group, I said that in exchange for an original of the constitution Act I would like a copy—any old copy—of Australia's parliamentary pensions Act, which is much admired by parliamentarians here. I now have to say, as chairman of the managing trustees of our parliamentary contributory pensions fund, that I have already received a copy of their Act—I hope that the Leader of the House will have had one too—and thus the sooner we pass this Bill, the better!
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is, as we have heard, a fundamental part of Australia's history. The Act represents the transition of the Australian constitution from a set of ideals, put together by the fathers of the Australian Federation—rather than being developed and imposed by Britain—to the legal and constitutional embodiment of Australian nationhood.
The importance to Australia of having an original copy of the document is illustrated by the popularity of the Public Record Office's copy while on temporary loan to Australia. As the House has heard, since being housed in the new Parliament house in Canberra, some millions of visitors have been to see the document. Currently under consideration is a proposal that the original part of the old Parliament house in Canberra, which is to be preserved, should become a constitutional museum for public enjoyment and educational purposes, and it is proposed that Australia's original copy of its constitution Act will now be the central feature.
The arguments put to me against allowing the Australians to have an original copy of their constitution Act ignored the fact that in no other Commonwealth country was there a referendum before the British statute for its constitution could become law. It is therefore as much an Australian as a British document. Again, unlike the arrangements in other comparable Commonwealth countries, amendment of the Australian constitution has always been purely an Australian process both in initiation and in execution.
No other Commonwealth country had such a dominant say in the form taken by the imperial Act conferring its constitution. The only British input was at a meeting in London of the then British Prime Minister with the premiers of the states—then the colonies—during the diamond jubilee celebrations of 1897; the subsequent provision of some legal advice on the drafted provisions by the Crown's Law Officers in this country; and the relatively small changes made by the British Parliament after negotiation with Australian leaders.
This makes Australia's position unique in terms of the status of its constitution Act, and for us now to legislate to pass one of the original copies of the Act to Australia ought not, therefore, to be seen as a precedent for others to follow. On that point—one of clear importance in Sir Robin Butler's letter to me—I can assure the House that since my Bill was published in February, although it has

received wide attention abroad, I have seen no suggestion that giving Australia an original copy of its constitution Act will be used as a precedent for other countries to follow.
There will now be a wholly felicitous outcome to the Australian Prime Minister's request to the ANZAC group last June. What is happening in the House today demonstrates that very unusual things can still happen when parliamentarians work together to try to solve even the most insoluble problems. I know that right hon. and hon. Members, in all parts of the House, will act as one in giving a Second Reading to the Bill. By doing so we shall be giving great pleasure to the Government and people of Australia who, as the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said, in war and peace have been and remain among the most steadfast friends of the British people. We shall also be further improving Anglo-Australian relations by acceding to Australia's wholly reasonable request for an original copy of the Act which, as the House has heard, is the legal and constitutional embodiment of Australia's nationhood. There has been immense change in Australia since the Act was passed, but it is now, and will ever be, a document of enormous importance to all Australians.
Finally, I must acknowledge with appreciation the Government's timing of the First Reading of the Bill. That it was timed, in keeping with my request, for ANZAC day on 25 April—a day so very important in Australia—was extremely well received both by the Australian high commission in London and in Australia. My hope now, like, I am sure, everyone else who has been involved in the long-running consideration of its important purpose, is that the Bill will pass quickly into law.
In that regard, I have one brief, concluding point. Such is the length of time that it has taken to obtain for the people of Australia an original copy of the 1900 Act, perhaps to repay them with interest the Solicitor-General could have a third copy made for Australia of the Act that this Bill will soon become. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. William Cash: One or two coincidences have occurred in relation to the Bill, not least that the Chair on which you are sitting, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a gift of Australia. To that extent, this is a quid pro quo: we are giving back to Australia that which is rightfully hers.
Last year, with the assistance of the high commissioner, Doug McClelland, I arranged, as secretary of the Lords and Commons cricket team, for us to play a most distinguished team from Australia, which we greatly enjoyed. One of the patrons and presidents of that team is Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister of Australia, who is a member of a club of which I am a somewhat unimportant member, Vincent's club in Oxford. Sir Robin Butler is also a member of that club. I hope that those interested in these matters will agree that a Bill of this importance and significance has some anecdotal interest.
It is highly appropriate that we should give the Bill a Second Reading today because we owe much to Australia and to the Australians who fought with us in the war. I speak as one whose father was killed in Normandy fighting with Australians in that great endeavour between 1940 and 1944. I say that with all the depth of feeling that I can command.
As we are now moving into a new era in Europe, we must remember the relationships that we have with our friends in the Commonwealth, and that the day must not come when Magna Carta becomes part and parcel of an Act such as this deposited in Brussels.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Perhaps I should declare an interest in the debate. First, half my family live in Australia and, secondly, I hope to visit the Commonwealth of Australia later this year but not, I hope, at public expense.
On my last visit in the 1970s, I was asked by a distinguished Officer of the House to convey a personal message to his opposite number in one of the state legislatures. My call at that Parliament building coincided with the dramatic announcement of the retirement of the premier of that state. The inevitable interviewer on the steps of the building jabbed his microphone at my mouth and invited me to make a profound comment on the shock announcement, as he called it. It was such a delicate matter that any comment from me on the premier's decision was bound to cause offence. I kept a straight face and explained that I had had a tip-off and had just flown from London to lodge my application for the job and expressed my hope that the assembled press men would support my nomination.
I thought that the stunned silence that enabled me to make my escape was the last that I would hear of it, but to my horror the next morning I discovered that an enterprising young journalist from one of the local newspapers had produced the headline, "Dark horse enters race for premiership."
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I will warmly support the Bill on Second Reading and throughout the rest of its passage. An uncle of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) served with Australians at Gallipoli. My hon. Friend was one of the sponsors of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I warmly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the sponsors on their initiative.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said that the Act is as much an Australian as a British document. I agree, but naturally, for understandable reasons, it is regarded as far more significant and precious by Australians.
We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for explaining with much clarity, as usual, the background to the debate. We welcome his decision to avoid delay in implementing the Act when it has received Royal Assent.
The Australian Prime Minister has been generous in his remarks regarding those who smoothed the way for today's debate. Many of us who are privileged to know the present Australian high commissioner assume that he played a vital role quietly in bringing the arrangements to fruition. The Commonwealth of Australia is well served by that distinguished public representative in London.
The permanent transfer will mean much to older generations of Australians, but will have a separate meaning for younger Australians, because it will remove from their minds any impression that the United Kingdom is a far-away country about which they know little or

which knows or cares little about them. Today's operations and the subsequent developments will, I hope, convince them that we care about them and wish them well in their new nation on the other side of the globe.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I have been an hon. Member for seven years, and for six of them I have been secretary of the Australia-New Zealand parliamentary group. I can say with complete honesty that no title among the few that I hold has given me greater pleasure.
In those six years, little has given me greater pleasure in the House than to have had the closest working relationship with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who by happy coincidence is my parliamentary neighbour as our constituencies abut one another. As my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said, only parliamentary convention precludes me from addressing him across the Floor of the Chamber as my "right hon. Friend." I should like to pay a warm tribute to him for all the work that he has done in the House not only on the Bill but on behalf of Australia, for which he has been signally rewarded by the Australian Government, who honoured him last year. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise that, in this Chamber, he is Australia personified.
This is one of the Government's most successful privatisation measures. I hope that it does not cause any difficulties for the right hon. Gentleman. However, as the Australian Labor Government are enthusiastic privatisers, I should not think that it will cause him any difficulty. I am delighted that it is one of the pieces of Government legislation that has given rise to complete unanimity. I hope that that will be followed in all other measures that they introduce.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows that one of my great fears is that the Government may even try to privatise the Public Record Office. I hope that there will be some assurance on that important question before the debate concludes.

Mr. Hamilton: I shall not be drawn into any controversy during this debate, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's point will be well taken.
One of the least satisfactory aspects of our membership of the European Community has been the tendency of some Commonwealth countries, especially the older ones such as Australia, to take our growing and closer interests in Europe as betokening a loss of connection with or interest in Commonwealth countries. I am delighted that, today, we have an opportunity to declare to all the world that we value our continuing links with Australia—not only the friendly and diplomatic links, but the family and blood links mentioned by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).
As years go by, it is important that we work at remembering the historical connections and cultural identities that still bind our countries together. It is more than 200 years since the American colonies severed their links with the British Crown, but we still like to think that we have a special relationship with them. We certainly have a special relationship with Australia. I hope that that will continue for many centuries and that this measure will be one way to cement that.
It was a great pleasure to attend the ANZAC day service in Westminster abbey a few days ago. British through and through as I am, it gave me a thrill to sing, with full voice, the Australian national anthem. Although Australia is increasingly a cosmopolitan country, and although inevitably as the years go by the British element in its population will be diluted and the historical connections between our two countries loosened, there will always be a special relationship. It will always give us a shared thrill to sing that national anthem.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, I could not attend the recent celebrations in Gallipoli. However, I was in Istanbul only a short time ago and I made a special journey to the British war cemetry at Uskudar—named after the famous Skutari hospital of Florence Nightingale—where many Australians and New Zealanders are buried. It was a moving moment when I wandered among the gravestones and remembered the vast loss of life on the beaches of Gallipoli. The friendship of our two peoples all those years ago was symbolised on those beaches, and I hope that it will continue to be remembered as a symbol of connection between the two countries.
As a supporter of the original measure introduced by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, it gives me great pleasure to reaffirm my commitment to the friendship between our two peoples and to wish Australia well in the future.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who fought so hard for this Bill. I give it my total support. I first met Australians during the last war. I was attached to an RAF camp and I shall never forget the arrival of an Australian squadron. Our cinema was in a Nissen hut and the British officers sat in the front rows, the junior officers behind them, the sergeants and corporals behind them and the rest of us behind them. The Australians arrived, and they sat anywhere. It was marvellous. It was democracy in practice. They did not care whether someone was a leading officer, or an AC2 like me.

Mr. Molyneaux: I do not think that it was entirely an operation in democracy. It is a tribute to the intelligence of the Australians to say that they know that the expensive seats are always at the back of the cinema.

Mr. Heffer: Whatever their reasons, they took no notice of rank. Our officers were somewhat shocked. I thought that it would be the end of class rule.
It was following that experience that I began to study Australian history. I soon realised that it was our people—southern Irish, northern Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh—who were transported to Australia because they were thieves, dissidents, or people with ideas. They would not just sit down and accept everything that this class-conscious country accepted. They believed in democracy, and it was wonderful.
I learned a great deal from the Australians. They are wonderful people. They have a right to the document. Indeed, they have always had that right. They have a right to their freedom. However, I have always been concerned about the fact that we have turned our backs on them. I am not a British nationalist, although I was born in England

and my relatives go back to the Saxons, but it saddens me to think that we joined the EEC and turned our backs on all those people who I was with during the war—the Australians, New Zealanders, southern Irish, northern Irish, and others from all over the world. That is a shame on this country. I believe in internationalism, but we have a responsibility to those people and they have a love for us, as was shown when they joined us during those war days.
The Australians have a shame on them, too—the fact that they have never accepted the rights of the aboriginal people. I made that point at the time of the bicentennial celebrations when we sent Australia a gift. I was the dissident voice. I said, "Hang on, what about the aboriginals? They have rights, too." The Pope made it clear that he also thought that they had land rights. I certainly think that they have land rights. I say to our Australian friends——

The Solicitor-General: I gave the hon. Gentleman an incomplete answer earlier. I now have a copy of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. Section 51 makes specific mention of the aboriginal peoples. It recognised that their position was already dealt with by the states. It reads:
The Parliament shall, subject to. this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:—The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.
That means that it was a matter of law for the states in 1900.

Mr. Heffer: I am grateful for that information about this important matter. There is no doubt that the mass of Australians have tended to ignore the position of the aboriginals, and that is quite wrong. An interesting book, "The Other Shore", has been written by a man called Hughes. If one reads that, or John Pilger's book on Australia, or watches television programmes about the position of the aborigines, one knows jolly well that there is a problem. I am not saying that it is a black and white problem—nobody should ever say that. There are always problems to which we do not get the full answers. However, aborigines have rights and those rights have been trampled on for a long time.
I am not sure that nowadays I would vote for Bob Hawke. He is a bit like my Front Benchers, who seem to have forgotten what socialism is all about. The Australians argued for socialist rights long before we did. People like Tom Mann went there, came back here, and talked about socialism on the basis of what they had learnt there. Michael Davide, the Irishman, came back from Australia and argued for land rights. He had learnt from the Australians who argued for those rights long before we did. Australia had a Labour movement, a Labour party and democratic rights long before we did. Let us never forget that. We can learn from them as much as they can learn from us.
The Australians are right and we were wrong to be so unforthcoming, but they should not forget the rights of the minority. The aborigines have to be treated equally, whatever and whoever they are. Had the Europeans not gone to Australia, it would not be as it is now, but the aborigines are the original Australians and have rights. They must have those rights and Bob Hawke should not forget that. He should not listen to Murdoch and all the others with their big money. To hell with their money—


what is important is the Australian democracy, for which all Australians have fought. I was brought up on it because I learnt about it as a young lad after meeting Australians in the RAF. I was proud to meet them because they are great people. We are right to support them, but also to tell them that they should give the aborigines every right to which they are entitled.

The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I shall draw together this helpful debate in which the view of those who have spoken has been unanimously in favour of the Bill, starting with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). He asked whether there might be other requests and, if so, how they would be dealt with. The answer could not have been put better than it was by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who is a progenitor of the Bill. He explained what a unique occasion this is, and how what is being given—to pick up the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)—is not a copy of the Act. We are talking not about a copy of a birth certificate but about an original of the birth certificate, which will go to Australia with our full-hearted consent. That is what makes it so unusual and that is why it is the subject of primary legislation which is confined to that document going to that country. Such legislation will not normally be repeated. We do not expect this to become a precedent—it is a unique occasion.
I welcome the comments made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). I have mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme who, like other hon. Members, attended the ANZAC ceremony last week. We all have that deeply moving occasion in mind and it is highly appropriate that we should be having this debate so soon after that occasion.
I have answered the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and shown that, even back in 1900, the aborigines were specifically mentioned in the Act, an original of which we are about to hand over. It is delightful to find unanimity on that point. If it had a carefully thought out provenance, it is all the better and more valuable as a gift in friendship for that. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Education and Training

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4431/1/90 and the proposal described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 30th April 1990 relating to the establishment of a European Training Foundation, and 4432/90 and the proposal described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Education and Science on 30th April 1990 relating to the establishment of a Trans European Mobility Programme for University Studies (TEMPUS); and supports the Government's view that these European Community initiatives will provide an appropriate means of providing assistance to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the areas of vocational training, higher education and youth exchanges.
The European Council at Strasbourg in December 1989 recognised the importance of training. It called upon the Community to establish a European training foundation for central and eastern Europe. I am sure the House appreciates the reasons for the Heads of States' enthusiasm for the principle of such a foundation.
Countries emerging from the stagnation of central bureaucratic control need help in defining their training needs. We must avoid assistance from the west being fragmented or overlapping. The recipient countries should not be flooded with offers of help in some areas to the possible detriment of others.
The Commission's proposal for the foundation started with Poland and Hungary because the Community's aid package covers only those countries at present. As other central and eastern European countries progress towards democracy, and become covered by the aid package, they may also benefit from the work of the foundation.
The arrangements for extension, as our initial explanatory memorandum and the Scrutiny Committee's reports pointed out, were unclear. We have therefore pursued these concerns in negotiations, with the results described in our latest memoranda. The intention is that the foundation will contribute assistance in initial and continuing vocational training and retraining, including management training.
The foundation works by providing assistance to the eligible countries in the definition of training needs and priorities. It will act as a clearing house to provide information on current initiatives and future needs in the training field, and provide a framework through which offers of assistance can be channelled. On the basis of this information, it will identify, and where necessary develop and support, specific projects in conjunction with member states and private organisations.
The December European Council also asked the Commission to bring forward a proposal for an exchange programme similar in character to those available for Community citizens. This is now known as the trans-European mobility programme for university studies, or TEMPUS to give it its more user-friendly acronym.
TEMPUS acknowledges that it has often been young people in the forefront of the pro-democracy demonstrations. They will also need to be at the forefront of the economic changes. TEMPUS will enable students from central and eastern European countries to study at a university or undertake a university placement within the


Community. There will be a small element of exchange, but most traffic is expected to be in the east-west direction. TEMPUS is modelled on the Community's ERASMUS programme, the European Community action scheme for the mobility of university students.
The Community will support activities which link universities and enterprises in central and eastern Europe with partners in the Community, such as retraining of language teachers and the development of short intensive courses and distance learning. That element of the programme is modelled on the Community's community action programme in education and training for technology—the COMETT programme. The likely demand for TEMPUS places within the United Kingdom is not yet known, but there is already much interest in English language training and for courses based in English.
The United Kingdom began negotiations on the foundation and TEMPUS with a number of concerns. These were set out in explanatory memoranda Nos. 4431/90 and 4432/90. In the 12th and 13th reports on the proceedings of the Select Committee on European Legislation, the Government were invited to make available further explanatory memoranda about those issues on which they are seeking clarification in Brussels. These memoranda set out progress to date and deal with the specific points in the Scrutiny Committee reports.
As negotiations have progressed, the links between the proposals to set up the foundation and TEMPUS and the objectives of the European Community treaty have, at our insistence, been made clearer. It is important to remember that the latest presidency text, on which our supplementary memoranda are based, makes it clear that the foundation and TEMPUS are two of the mechanisms by which aid to Poland and Hungary will be achieved. The preambles are based on the preambles already adopted for regulation 3906, which makes clear the Council's view that intensified relationships brought about by such aid will contribute to a harmonious development of economic activities within the Community, and so achieve one of the objectives of the treaty.
I am sure that it will be common ground on both sides of the House that both measures will amount to a worthwhile contribution to the end which we would all share. In that light, I commend them to the House.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I thank the Minister for the way in which he has introduced the documents. I agree with his final comment that there is no disagreement on either side of the House about the overall value of the programmes. I agree with many of the Minister's comments this evening, including his commitment to investment in education and skills. I agree also with his comment that, to help central and eastern European economies to develop, it is necessary to develop those skills at all levels. The Minister was right to say that there is a need to develop managerial skills as well as the need to develop what I shall describe as middle-level skills, which are those that apply to technicians and vocational training that are important in terms of economic development.
The Opposition welcome both of the programmes. They are important contributions to the development of eastern Europe and to links between eastern Europe and

the European Community. I shall put three specific questions to the Minister about the programmes in the hope that he will be able to answer them. The explanatory memorandum supplied by the Department of Education and Science says in the 10th paragraph on the third page that the flow of students—this point has been made by the Minister this evening—is much more likely to be from east to west. I am, of course, referring to the TEMPUS programme. It is important that British universities, polytechnics and colleges play their full part in the process. We should not be squeezed out of it so as to become second-class contributors to the programme.
The problem highlighted in the 10th paragraph is that students coming from central and eastern European countries would normally be charged full-cost fees. It is important that students are not prevented from participating in the scheme because the British Government charge full-cost fees. I shall welcome the Minister's comments. If we charge full-cost fees, there is a real danger that students from central and eastern Europe will decide to go to Germany, France or other European Community countries and not come to the United Kingdom. It would be a shame if Britain were excluded from TEMPUS on that basis.
When the Minister was talking about the establishment of the European training foundation, he referred to the possibilities for exchange as part of the development of vocational skills. Again, I suspect that the traffic will be mostly one way, from east to west. There may be a good deal of profit in a number of senses for some of that traffic to be from west to east, so that British youngsters and British workers of more mature age have the opportunity to develop certain skills in other countries and building up economic and cultural links on that basis. I hope that the Minister will give some reassurance that it may be possible for British youngsters to participate on that basis and to use the exchange mechanism in that sense to go to either Poland or Hungary.
The Minister rightly said that the two schemes are limited to two eastern European countries, Poland and Hungary. It is clear that there is a need for similar developments and exchanges with other eastern European countries. What criteria will be used when considering whether other countries should become part of the process? It is not unlikely that, before too long, countries such as Czechoslovakia will want to participate. How might they be included in the programme, what criteria will be used, and what are the cost implications of such a development for other countries?
The Opposition approve of the proposals, which build links across Europe. They help in the development of eastern European countries. It is important that the European Community plays its part in that development. On this one occasion we can say to the Minister and his colleagues that we support some of the activities of the European Community. We support the positive way in which they have made a contribution to the schemes.

Mr. Willian Cash: I think that this is the first time that I have addressed the House when I have been the only Back-Bench Member on either side of the Chamber,. It is important, however, to debate matters that stem from Europe when points of principle are involved.
The Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am a member, considered the relevant document yesterday. Hon. Members will note that it is dated 2 May 1990. Some hon. Members may have noted the early-day motion which I tabled this morning, which refers to new Treasury memoranda on economic and monetary union. The motion refers to the report of the Commission on that subject and the important memorandum of the Treasury of 23 April, which is available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
We are discussing an issue which arose during the sitting of the Select Committee on European Legislation yesterday in respect of training and management, which is of immense importance to the people of Europe, including Poland and Hungary, and of especial importance to the future prospects of Britain if it is to catch up with Germany, which now has a 70 per cent. trade surplus with the rest of the European Community put together. That issue is related to the future economy of Europe, including this country. I feel that we should debate economic and monetary union, as well as the issues that are before us, as early as possible. You may not want me to go down that path now, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you may allow me to do so on a future occasion.
There was a time when we were in danger of being somewhat pedantic about the treaty base of EC legislation. This proposal is based on article 235, which deals with proposals for which no explicit powers are set out in the treaty. But there are occasions—this is one of them—when it is clear that, in the interests of a wider Europe, that flexible association of states which, in combination with the EC—I hope that it will not become federal in the sense in which I have described it on many occasions—we can build on matters such as education and training a new, prosperous and freer Europe which will benefit all the people of Europe and bring peace and prosperity to all the people within that common home.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for the way in which he responded to my initial comments. It seems to be one of those days when there is amity throughout the House. Our colleagues in the outside world should be looking to see what we, on both sides of the House, can do when we are left to it.
The hon. Gentleman properly touched on a particular point of concern relating to tuition fees, for which our structures tend to be different from those of our partners in the EC. The Government, in conjunction with EC officials, are considering how to proceed. It would be unrealistic for me to try to work out exactly how that will be resolved, but it would be anomalous if a programme which we thoroughly and wholeheartedly welcome foundered on what is essentially an important point of detail which we must get right. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern, and the Government are actively considering how to take the idea forward.

Mr. Fatchett: Can the Minister give us the likely time scale of those deliberations? There are clearly implications not just for the TEMPUS programme but in other directions as well. The Minister said that it would be anomalous to favour a programme and then create

difficulties in relation to TEMPUS, but presumably other countries with which Britain has certain relationships, particularly bilateral aid relationships, will be looking at the outcome of the deliberations.
I realise that it is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I hope that he will tell his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science that the decision must be taken within a broader framework. It would be useful if we could have some idea when the deliberations will be completed.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point. The Civil Service has a number of helpful phrases, many of which will strike doom into the hearts of hon. Members—words such as "shortly" and "in due course". We want to make progress as soon as possible. This is an outstanding detail—not an issue—which we must resolve, and I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's point is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The matter must obviously be dealt with as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance that an exchange from west to east would be possible. That is an important point which we have taken on board. There is no doubt that the structures allow for that, but, as I understand it, eastern countries feel that they cannot handle large numbers from the west at present. Without dwelling on their difficulties, one can understand the reason for that. It is anticipated that there will be such an exchange, but we must bear in mind the response from the eastern bloc countries.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about extending the programme beyond Poland and Hungary—a point raised by the Scrutiny Committee in its 12th report, when it sought clarification of the procedure to extend the foundation's work beyond Hungary and Poland. It felt that it should reflect the need of the Council of Ministers to control that process.
To some extent, we have tried to reflect the concerns about that in the original explanatory memorandum, because we share the Scrutiny Committee's views. Procedures for extending the work of the foundation beyond Poland and Hungary have been clarified; and that is described in my Department's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 30 April. They are linked to the council designation of
such a country as is eligible for economic aid".
That extension would require a further Community legal act, such as that in relation to regulation 3906, which underpins the original package. Progress can clearly be made there. These matters have a momentum of their own.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) reminded us with fast footwork and his customary elegance that there are other matters that he would like to be debating. Were Ito attempt to do so, since my footwork is not as fast as that of my hon. Friend, I suspect that I would be pulled up quickly. I shall simply say that I shall bear in mind what he says. He is right to draw attention to the fact that article 235 underpins this matter and that, to use a polite phrase, as one lawyer to another, it is a catch-all provision to take account of things which might not otherwise be thought of.

Mr. Cash: If I may be allowed to use another language, c'est le blancmanger qui mange-tout.

Mr. Nicholls: I was recently reproached in a Standing Committee for saying in Latin that I did not understand Latin, but that I was prepared to use the vernacular. As I was responding to a Latin tag from another lawyer, I thought that that was appropriate. On that occasion, I was properly reprimanded by the Chair for responding in a foreign language, so I had better not do so today.
Article 235 is there to ensure that there is harmonious economic development and so on. Inevitably, catch-all provisions have to be looked at with some care to make sure they are not catching more than all. However, we can be satisfied that this is a worthwhile initiative to take forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4431/1/90 and the proposal described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 30th April 1990 relating to the establishment of a European Training Foundation, and 4432/90 and the proposal described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Education and Science on 30th April 1990 relating to the establishment of a Trans European Mobility Programme for University Studies (TEMPUS); and supports the Government's view that these European Community initiatives will provide an appropriate means of providing assistance to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the areas of vocational training, higher education and youth exchanges.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 752), dated 26th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.—[Mr. Pa tnick.]

Question agreed to.

Sitting suspended.

Orders of the Day — London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are present to assume your august responsibilities in connection with the Bill. I apologise, though not on behalf of the Bill's promoters, to right hon. and hon. Members for the fact that we are here all together at this time. It is an exciting time politically in the country, but particularly in respect of London elections. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, had a difficult task in selecting the business to be considered tonight. I understand that there are four London-related Bills in the pipeline, so it seems that any choice that you made would include a London Bill.
The London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill is important, and although it is being promoted by Westminster city council, it is on behalf of and at the request of the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities jointly. Section 87 of the Local Government Act 1985 states that a London borough may promote a Bill for its own borough or for another borough. Schedule 1 to the Bill lists all the 31 participating councils promoting the Bill out of a total of 33. The two exceptions are the City of London, which usually has its own legislation, and Camden, v, here I believe there was some problem with the passing of a resolution to include that authority in the statute because there was insufficient time to do so. I have since been told that two of the remaining 31 boroughs wish to be dissociated from clause 4 of the Bill, so 29 London boroughs—comprising a mammoth population represented democratically by councillors—have asked for the Bill to be presented in its entirety.
I have been surprised at the way in which the arguments encapsulated in the Bill have developed over the past few weeks, but only clause 4 gives rise to any aggravation. I draw to the attention of the House an instruction that I tabled yesterday, and which appears on today's Order Paper:
After Second Reading of the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords], to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they do not allow Clause 4 (Private Hire Vehicles) unless they are satisfied that it will not jeopardise the unique and valuable position of the licensed Hackney Carriage trade within London.
I understand that that instruction has not been called, and I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarification.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It may be for the convenience of the hon. Gentleman and the House if I say that, although Mr. Speaker has not selected the instruction, it will be in order for hon. Members to refer to it in the course of the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Hanley: It is not for right hon. and hon. Members to question why an instruction has not been called, but II understand that that usually occurs if it is believed that the issue enclosed by the instruction will be fully debated by the Committee when it seeks evidence from the various


petitioners. I shall explain later the purpose of the instruction, but first I wish to dispose of those clauses which are not at all contentious.
The Bill before the House is the second of its type to be promoted. The first received Royal Assent in February. Like the Bill now under consideration, that measure conferred a variety of general powers on London boroughs. One of its most significant provisions related to improvements in the street trading code.
The Bill now before us was deposited in November 1988 and was allocated by the House authorities to originate in the House of Lords. Several petitions against the Bill were received in another place and hefty negotiations followed. The Bill went before a Committee of the Lords in October 1989, and subsequently was carried over to the present Session.
Apart from procedural provisions, the Bill contains five substantive clauses. Clause 5 concerns the restoration of water, gas and electricity services. It slightly amends existing legislation to enable a participating council to arrange, where appropriate, the reinstatement also of water supplies when they have been cut off. It is a social clause, and all the participating boroughs believe that it would be useful.
Clause 6 relates to crime prevention, and I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member disagrees with its intention, which has been welcomed in principle by the Government. It will allow a participating council to engage in various activities described in the clause for the purpose of crime prevention. The Government expressed some reservations about certain details and negotiations are continuing. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) in his place as he is a leading authority on the subject of crime prevention.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: Clause 6 appears to be an excellent provision, but perhaps my hon. Friend will explain certain of its features in more detail. Clause 6(5) states:
Before exercising the powers of this section, a participating council shall consult the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis.
My reading of that, having studied the rest of clause 6, is that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will have to be consulted before any spyhole is fitted in a door or any grille fitted to a basement window. That seems a little excessive.

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I had expected it as he is an expert at intervening and asking for explanations of greater length. My hon. Friend regularly requires lengthy explanations and very great patience needs to be shown to answer his questions. I will therefore accommodate him and speak as slowly as may be necessary.
London local authorities currently have no powers to undertake crime prevention activities other than incidentally through their housing, social services, and environmental health functions. As a consequence, they have relied on section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 to finance many crime prevention schemes. London boroughs have many calls on the funds available under that provision. As a result of that competition for finance, crime prevention measures have suffered from a lack of funding in a number of London local authorities.
The problem has been exacerbated by the proposed changes to spending limits for section 137 funding brought about by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Those changes, which will come into effect later this year, impose a ceiling on such funding of £5 per head of population. The effect will be that boroughs with small populations will have significantly less funding available. It is now proposed that London local authorities will have powers, including the power to spend money, to take measures conducive or incidental to the prevention of crime or to helping to alleviate its effects.
Clause 6 will enable local authorities to spend money on items such as security marking of belongings, the provision of locks and alarms for the elderly or disabled living in private accommodation and the improvement of lighting in buildings. There are also powers to provide counselling and compensation for victims where there is inadequate provision. In addition to spending money directly on crime prevention measures, local authorities will be able to make grants to voluntary organisations to carry out similar functions. I hope that that explains adequately some of the provisions, although my hon. Friend may wish to make a speech later.
Clause 7 is on liquor licensing. The clause has powerful support from the police. It will stop up a loophole in the liquor licensing laws. The details are rather complicated, but they involve a careful distinction between wholesale and retail selling.
Clause 8 amends the Croydon Corporation Act 1960. Under section 159 of that Act, Croydon borough council is limited to an expenditure of £500 a year for various activities, the principal of which is functions associated with town twinning. The limit, which may have been appropriate in 1960, is now unduly restrictive on the borough council and 30 years later it seems that the section should be removed.
I am a great advocate of twinning. My borough is twinned with the lovely towns of Konstanz in Germany and Fontainebleau in France. I am sure that £500 would not go far towards returning the excellent hospitality and friendship that we receive when we visit those two excellent towns. Croydon, too, should be twinned. The 1960 Act relates only to Croydon and I am sure that the twinning would be sensible and not over-expensive. I doubt whether there would be twinning with central American towns or even Soviet ones. Nevertheless, it would certainly help European friendship.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport on his future position as Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. That is a tremendous honour and he is exactly the right man for the job. His presence and that of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who speaks for the Opposition, show that public transport is important in the Bill.
There are three petitions against the Bill, all relating to clause 4 which deals with private hire vehicles. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, the petitions will be referred to an Opposed Private Bill Committee which will have the opportunity to hear evidence from the promoters and the petitioners and to judge with the benefit of that evidence. The Committee will have the opportunity to consider the other provisions of the Bill and to require the promoters to justify them, if appropriate.
I have already read out the instruction to the Committee which I tabled but which was not called because it seemed superfluous to the activities of the


Committee. I tabled it because I did not want anybody to believe that the Bill was intended to be harmful to the licensed hackney carriage trade in London. The black taxi trade is part of London—for many, it is London. Its quality is unique. Neither I nor the promoters intend to harm it and 29 London boroughs believe that the clause will not harm it.
There are many reasons for clause 4, but first I shall state my credentials for moving it because recently there has been some black propaganda about why I am moving the Bill. Some have said that it is a case of tail-end Charlie, that everyone else recognised the strength of the black cab trade and declined the job and I was the only one who did not. For the past three years I have been trying to promote a private Member's Bill on behalf of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. Many hon. Members are patrons of that trust, which is based in the middle of my constituency. Diana Lamplugh, whose energy, enthusiasm, good will and good works are known to many right hon. and hon. Members, has been trying to introduce legislation to tighten the laws on minicab drivers. I know that many hon. Members refuse to understand the clause, but in the past week when I have been talking on television and radio many people outside have begun to understand that the clause is not anti-black-cab. If anything, it is anti-unlicensed-minicab. If people believe that the one follows the other, I should like to hear their arguments.
Of the many cases, I shall cite one in the Evening Standard which starts with a telling word:
Another woman has been abducted, raped and assaulted after being taken for a five-hour ordeal by a bogus mini-cab driver.
The clause would merely bring London into line with the rest of England and, for all I know, further afield—no more and no less. In London anybody, even a Member of this House, so long as he declared it in the Register of Members' Interests, could get an "A to Z", although that seems to be a luxury for some minicab drivers, get an old banger or even use an existing private car and set up as a minicab driver. All one needs is a few cards with a telephone number and one is away.
Not long ago I was provided with a minicab by a company in north Kensington which I was visiting. This is not apocryphal—it is an exact case. The driver, who seemed Nigerian or Ghanaian—later he confirmed that he was Ghanaian—asked me where I wanted to go. When I said that I wanted to go to the House of Commons, he asked what was my favourite route. I told him not to worry about that but just to take me there. He then explained that what he was trying to find out was what the route was. It turned out during our interesting conversation that he had been in this country for seven days as a holidaymaker and was earning a little money on the side. He could drive and the car was provided by his employers. He did not know London, although occasionally during his student days he had acted as a part-time taxi driver. He claimed to be a barrister.
That experience is all too common. It is almost comical. What is not comical is the type of example set out in the Evening Standard article and many others. Hon. Members may remember the case which darkened Christmas two years ago. A young girl with two companions left a pub in north London and asked a minicab driver outside whether his was the cab that they had ordered. He said yes. He took the two friends home and then made as if to take the young girl to her house, but did not do so. Over the following

days the papers and television were full of the fact that the girl was repeatedly raped by the man who was described as a body builder. Eventually, three days later the case ended in a fatal crash in East Anglia. Over Christmas the public had little to think about but the fate of that poor girl, who was lucky to be alive at the end of her ordeal.
The sole reason why that happened was that the apparent minicab outside the pub had no plate. It was not a minicab, but posed as one. London is not in line with the rest of the country as London minicabs have no identifying plate. Indeed, they are not allowed an identifying plate. No woman can check to see whether there is a plate. Diana Lamplugh has tried consistently to change that. The article in the Evening Standard quotes her as saying:
There's absolutely no way of telling an honest mini-cab driver from a bogus one, or one with a criminal record. There is no proper licensing of these people and attacks of this kind are bound to carry on. The driver should be vetted and there should be a sign so that people can see if a car approaching them is a cab.
Clause 4 brings London into line with the rest of the country. The black cab trade, which has been vociferous in its publicity, has said that the Bill will do nothing to help and that there are many deficiencies in the legislation governing areas outside London. I agree wholeheartedly. The main publicity published by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association states:
Stop the minicab cowboys getting a licence to cheat".
The black cab trade also states:
The Bill does nothing to stop kerb crawling touts".
No, it does not: there is already a law to stop such touts, but we have to start somewhere. My hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the Home Office, through the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, is currently sponsoring an investigation into the activities of minicab drivers and the safety or otherwise of their passengers, particularly women and children. That investigation is costing the Home Office in excess of £20,000 and the objective is to introduce legislation to tighten up the activity of minicab drivers throughout the country.
In 1976 the rules which currently govern minicabs throughout the country were introduced, but at the direct request of the black cab trade those rules excluded London. In London minicab vehicles do not have plates on the back because the black cab trade did not want that. If the recommendations of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust are acceptable to the Government and to the Transport and General Workers Union and their representatives in Parliament, which basically means the Labour party, any Bill designed to cater for the entire country will be hybrid until we have a level playing field and London is in line with the rest of the country.

Mr. Patrick Ground: My hon. Friend probably knows more than most of us about the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the research that is being undertaken, about which I have read something, but how far has that research gone? Is work at the Home Office still in train? If so, when will the results be published?

Mr. Hanley: The research is still in train, at a total cost of £41,000. I have some of the earlier findings with me but I shall not delay the House by reading them out. I also have correspondence between the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the Home Office sent in the course of that research. It is expected that it will be finalised towards the end of the summer or by early winter so that legislation can be introduced next year.
What we are introducing is not the be all and end all, but the provisions contained in clause 4 must be introduced before the recommendations of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which will cover all the country, can be introduced. Perhaps the House will decide that tonight is not the night to introduce the clause. Perhaps we shall have another year of delay and the rules that the House deemed suitable for the rest of the country in 1976 will not be extended to London. Perhaps some hon. Members believe that mincabs should remain without any identification on them, but that means that attacks similar to the one that I described will occur next year, the year after and even beyond.
I asked the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association what recommendations from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust it would accept. A letter sent by the LTDA says that this is not the right time to produce clause 4 because the trust is still carrying out its investigations. I therefore asked LTDA representatives what recommendations they would accept, but they said that they could not say what they would accept because they had not seen the recommendations. Such prevarication has been displayed for understandable commercial reasons, and it is born of the fear that trade will be lost as a result of the clause and the trust's recommendations. That understandable fear is groundless and regrettable.
I accept that clause 4 does nothing, as the LTDA has already pointed out, to stop "kerb crawling touts". It does not stop those who illegally ply for hire and stop for those who hail them. We cannot blame the clause for not stopping those practices—they are illegal, but that does not stop people breaking the law. It is for other authorities to arrest such people.
The LTDA has also said:
The Bill will not control minicab fares".
It will, however, ensure that taxi meters are used. In 1976 meters were thought necessary as it was felt that market forces would force out of business someone who charged extravagant fares on their taxi meter. I agree with the LTDA that the possession of a meter will give a veneer of respectability and value for money. No one can guarantee that a driver will not cheat on a taxi meter, but I will explain what local authorities will be able to do in relation to those meters. I appreciate that local authorities will be unable to fix fares, but we must hope that the Suzy Lamplugh Trust recommendations will do something about that.

Mr. Steve Norris: Central to my hon. Friend's argument is the proposition that before we can deal with the problem of the unlicensed trade we must have universal standards throughout the country. What advantages does my hon. Friend see in the regime operating under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which governs the rest of the country, against the regime operated by the Metropolitan police, which governs black cabs in London? What elements in the scheme which operates elsewhere in the country are superior to those which operate in London under Metropolitan police control?

Mr. Hanley: That is an interesting point. Nothing is superior to the training, experience, standards of quality and service and quality of vehicles of the black cab trade

in London. It is possible, however, for certain unlicensed minicabs to offer supreme quality and service. I should hate people to think that the whole trade is dissolute. There are people of the highest quality who are not drivers of black cabs but have wonderful minicabs of supreme quality and comfort and their services are used because of that. They are not always more expensive than black cabs. There are many honest people offering quality trade in the unlicensed minicab business, but in the general cab trade there is nothing superior to black cab training.
I understand that there are about 20,000 black cabs in London and 40,000 minicabs. I wish that there were 60,000 black cabs in London. Unfortunately, some people found that they could not operate black cabs in their area. After all, there would not be 40,000 minicabs in London if there was no need for them. Nevertheless, the House must understand that in my view the training that we give to drivers of black cabs is the best available in the world. I hope that when the Suzy Lamplugh Trust reports, something will be done about the training of minicab drivers. Does the Minister believe that there is room in London for minicabs as well as black cabs?
It is sad to think that the black cab trade does not want to see any improvement in the minicab trade because it fears that people might then choose minicabs, believing them to be as acceptable as black cabs. That argument has been put forward, although members of the black cab trade say, "That is not the position. We are not frightened of the minicab trade." Yet they resist the improvements of which I have been speaking.
They say that such improvements would not prevent women from being preyed on by bogus minicab drivers—simply because minicabs would have plates on the backs of their vehicles—even though people would know they were minicabs. While that would be an advance on the present situation, the black cab trade does not want that improvement to occur and would prefer the minicab trade to remain as it is. Nor does the black cab trade specify under what conditions it would allow changes to take place.
It is important for the House to consider just what restrictions do not apply to minicabs in London now. I accept that our proposals may not be perfect, but those who believe that the changes we propose should not be made must thereby disagree with the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
For a start, if a licence were granted, it would be good in any of the participating boroughs. In other words, a person licensed in Richmond to drive a minicab could drive in any of the other boroughs. Apart from two hon. Members of whom I am aware, all other hon. Members who represent London boroughs—Conservative, Labour and Liberal—accept that their councils have asked for the introduction of these provisions. Yet strangely, because they believe that they are under the instructions of, or are expressing the interests of, drivers of black cabs, they believe that their councils are wrong. Redbridge has disagreed and wishes to be dissociated, as does Greenwich, for different reasons.
I shall detail the restrictions that the measure would impose on minicab drivers in London, and the public may think it remarkable that they do not already apply. Section 46 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 says that the owner of a private hire vehicle


requires a licence, as does the driver and the operator. So the owner, driver and operator require a licence from the local authority.
Section 48 says that the licensing of private hire vehicles shall be authorised by the council so long as
they are satisfied … that the vehicle is … suitable in type, size and design for use as a private hire vehicle
and shall not be
of such design and appearance as to lead any person to believe that
it is a black cab. If hon. Members believe that any of those restrictions are undesirable, let them say so. The vehicle should be desirable for the purpose for which it is being used. The vehicle should be
in a suitable mechanical condition … safe; and … comfortable.
That is a requirement of the 1976 Act.
The drivers of black cabs say that minicabs are not inspected to the same rigorous degree as are black cabs. I accept that. I wish that they were inspected to such a high degree. I am asking, however, that their condition be brought up to the conditions at least required by the local authority so that they are fit for the purpose. At present, any old banger can be brought on to the road as a minicab. Will my hon. Friends who object to the course that is being proposed say why they will not force minicabs in their areas to be fit for the purpose? Why will they continue to allow their constituents to drive unlicensed cars?
Under section 48 of the Act, a council may require signs to be displayed or prohibit signs from being displayed on vehicles. Although signs might be prohibited, there would almost certainly be a plaque on the vehicle, and should the licence he removed, the plaque would have to be returned to the council. There might also be an identifying badge for the driver, and that badge would have to be available and he seen by the passenger at all times.
I wonder whether the girl who was raped three Christmases ago, and her friends, had they seen the number of the driver or known the borough from which the minicab came, would have taken a different view. Indeed, had they known for certain that it was a minicab, they might have felt more secure. They might have remembered the number of the driver and of the cab or the name of the licensing authority. Because it did not have a disc, they might not have got into the car and that girl might not have met such a terrible fate.
Section 49 says that if the owner of a private hire vehicle transfers his interest to somebody else, he must notify the council of that. That seems fair. Section 50 says that the owner of a private hire vehicle must take it for inspection by the council when required, although the council may not require inspection more than three times a year. In other words, inspection could take place three times a year.
Hon. Members who are perhaps voicing the views of other interests say, "We do not believe that minicabs in London should have any restrictions in respect of quality and inspection. Let us wait until a more perfect law is available." They are saying, "Let us wait until more minicabs cause damage on our roads." Indeed, black cab drivers have told me that if a girl is raped after the Bill becomes law it will be my fault. That makes me anxious to push the measure even harder because I believe strongly that when my constituents telephone for a minicab they should get one that is fit for the purpose and know that the driver and owner are fit people and that the vehicle has been inspected.
Not only should minicabs be inspected to ensure their quality, but the places where they are kept should be inspected. Further, if a minicab is damaged in such a way that its safety, performance or appearance is suspect, it should be repaired.
The owner of a minicab should have to provide a certificate of insurance. Incredibly, even that is not required at present before a person can become a minicab driver. The only requirement concerning insurance is the general one that applies to an ordinary car driver. Despite that, minicab drivers carry passengers for years, and if those passengers are injured they may not be covered.
Section 51 says that the district council will license anyone who applies to be licensed to drive a private hire vehicle unless he is not
a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence
or he has not held a full driving licence for at least 12 months. The council can attach conditions to the grant of a driver's licence.
The Metropolitan police computer is valuable in weeding out unfit people—people with sex offences recorded against them, for example, and people who might put the public at risk. The LTDA has said that the Bill would not improve Metropolitan police checks on driver criminal records. How could it? The Metropolitan police runs black cabs in London and owns the computer. Local authorities have no right to look at the computer. I wish that they could. I would like to see the establishment of a central authority with power to examine the computer, and put names through it, to see who has committed crimes. It might discover those who could be a danger to the public and who, therefore, should not be given approval.
Follow-up procedures should take place. If a person is found to be an "unreliable source", something could be done about it. Let us remember that at present that line of responsibility does not exist. The line of responsibility is first to the licensing body. Being the local authority, those who are licensed will be accountable to it.
Section 53 of the 1976 Act says that a licence shall be valid for up to three years and that the driver of a private hire vehicle shall produce his driver's licence for inspection if required. That seems a sensible provision, but it should apply before a driver goes on the road. At present, his driving licence need be produced only if he is stopped by a policeman and asked to produce it. But he could have been carrying passengers for years, perhaps even on a provisional licence.
Section 54 concerns the issue of drivers' badges, a subject with which I have dealt. I agree that a driver should wear a badge at all times and that it should be plainly and distinctly visible when he is driving a private hire vehicle.
Section 55 deals with the licensing of operators of private hire vehicles. It says that if it is believed that an operator is not a fit and proper person, he shall not be licensed, and conditions can be attached to the licence.
Section 56 concerns the booking of private hire vehicles. It says that a licensed operator must keep a record of all bookings that are accepted, that those bookings should be entered before the commencement of each journey and that the records must be available to the council or police on demand. In other words, it will be known where a car is, where it is going and what it has done. That will control many aspects of the minicab trade. I fear, however, that hon. Members will say that that would be undesirable.
Section 57 states that applicants for those licences must submit certain information, and I have mentioned references. Many other items can be put on the application form to weed out those who are unfit to carry the public. Section 60 involves the suspension and revocation of vehicle licences, and says that the council can suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a vehicle licence. Section 61 relates to the suspension and revocation of drivers' licences and there is a similar provision for operators' licences under section 62.
In the last small batch of sections, section 68 states that an authorised officer of the council and a policeman may inspect and test a private hire vehicle that is licensed. Under existing legislation, they do not have to test them for the purpose of carrying passengers, but merely for normal roadworthiness, as with an MOT. Section 69 states that it is a criminal offence for the driver of a licensed private hire vehicle to prolong a journey unnecessarily either in distance or time. It is an offence for a person to drive too far or too long, and can result in a licence being removed. Hon. Members and licensed taxi drivers may say that that still does not stop fraud because taxi meters have a veneer of authority about them.
I recall the case of a Japanese business man arriving at Heathrow. This tale is not apocryphal, but true. He drove from there, in a licensed black cab, to the centre of London, where all three Japanese passengers were asked for the amount on the taxi meter. Not only minicab drivers are crooks. They exist in all walks of life. There are crooks in the House—[Interruption.]—perhaps. It has been rumoured that in the past, many years ago, there might have——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean that there were crooks among hon. Members.

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that intervention, and I unreservedly withdraw my remark. In all walks of life there are those who may carry out their tasks dishonestly, even drivers of black cabs. Those who would carry out such crimes and elongate journeys, either through mileage or time, are a tiny proportion of the minicab trade and an even tinier proportion of the black cab trade, which is the best taxi trade in the world, and I would do nothing to harm it. I do not believe that the clause will harm them, and nor do the 29 local authorities promoting clause 4.
I have set out the requirements for carrying out business as a licensed minicab driver in the rest of the country, but not London. Will my hon. Friends say why introducing that legislation now is undesirable? Why is it undesirable for women to feel more secure because at least there is a licence disc on the back of a cab? Why is it undesirable to introduce legislation to provide that a minicab is fit for the purpose? Why is it undesirable to take references for minicab drivers? Why is it undesirable that, following an offence, a minicab driver, operator or owner should be taken off the road? I ask those questions time and time again, because the legislation, warts and all and imperfect though it is, should be introduced so that the law is consistent throughout the nation. Improvements to

bring up to the standard of black cabs those minicabs that are not should be brought into line following the Home Office research.
My instruction on the Order Paper asks that the Committee should not allow clause 4 unless it is
satisfied that it will not jeopardise the unique and valuable position of the licensed Hackney Carriage trade within London.
What greater bona fides could I give than the fact that the promoters believe that if the black cab trade is harmed we should not proceed with clause 4? However, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association has rejected that statement of intention. I wonder why. Is it because it fears that if people feel that minicabs are slightly more respectable, less of a danger to women and children, less disreputable because the quality and state of their vehicles and their reputation is better they may choose to use minicabs, rather than be forced, scared, into black cabs? If that is the sort of confidence that the black cab trade needs for its business, I am ashamed of those in it who feel that.
People have come to my office during the past week and written me letters. There has been hysteria about clause 4. Hon. Members have talked to me in the strongest terms, and when I have explained exactly what is being introduced they have been aghast and said that they did not realise. I ask my hon. Friends present today to consider what clause 4 means and what rejecting it means.
If the speeches following mine show that hon. Members want to stop elderly and poor people from having their gas and water reconnected, delay crime prevention and victim support, not clear up vehicle licensing laws and allow Croydon only £500 for the purpose of twinning, hon. Members should say so. I ask the hon. Member for Deptford to take that point to heart. If hon. Members would like the parts of the Bill relating to those matters to continue, I ask them to allow me to listen to their speeches and make their decisions later.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend mentioned vehicle licensing. He must be the first to confess that clause 7 is pretty short. From what it says, it appears that it proposes to extend off-licence sales in London. As the House will be only too aware, one problem we face today is too many off-licence sales for liquor consumption in the street. The purpose of the Licensing (Amendment) Act 1989, which Parliament in its wisdom passed last Session, was to introduce more flexible hours for on-licences to get liquor drinkers off the streets, and back into pubs where they rightly belong and can be supervised by a publican, who risks losing his licence, livelihood and even his home if he does not supervise drinking properly. That would appear to be an extension of off-licence drinking, which has serious——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Hanley: I doubt that any contributions will be brief this evening.
The clause is powerfully supported by the Metropolitan police and tightens up a loophole in the law. If my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) wishes to know anything further—I have always wanted to say this to an hon. Friend—I shall write to him.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: rose——

Mr. Hanley: I shall not give way as I am just about to end. I know that my hon. Friend, who is always present on such occasions, will want to make his own exhaustive speech. The debate would not be the same without him.
The promoters and I will willingly listen to the arguments. However, the people listening to the speeches following mine will hear that it is not just me, the so-called tailend Charlie, who has been mugged by private hire car vehicle operators to introduce a clause to give them total respectability. My speech represents the interests of 31 London boroughs for most of the Bill and those of 29 boroughs for all but clause 4. The people of those boroughs elected the councils that have approved a Bill for women in London who do not want to fall prey to bogus taxis and minicabs, children who have to be picked up from school by minicab and all those who, although they wish that a black cab would take them, find that it is difficult to get one. I ask hon. Members to explain carefully why they do not want what has been passed by Parliament for the rest of the country. If you seek to do away with this for London, you should seek to repeal the legislation in the rest of the country, and seek to explain why you believe that women——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My beliefs do not enter into it.

Mr. Hanley: I fully accept your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that we may privately discuss your thoughts on this, and I am sure that you will agree with me wholeheartedly.
Suffice it to say that I will listen to all the contributions which follow. If I feel that hon. Members are likely to put in jeopardy those parts of the Bill which I have explained and with which all hon. Members must agree, I will ask if they will allow me to intervene.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I should explain to the House that I represent the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association. My representation is listed in the Register of Members' Interests.
This subject is very emotive and has been for a number of years. I oppose clause 4. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) that I am not against the rest of the Bill. The criminal clause is very helpful to boroughs all over London, and there is no doubt that the other parts of the Bill will be helpful for London as a whole; but I am concerned particularly about clause 4—so concerned that I put down a blocking motion.
Before I give reasons for my opposition, I would just like to look at what has happened to the Bill. It started off with 52 clauses and has arrived here with a mere eight left. Much of it was taken out in the House of Lords.
Last year, the Government produced a Green Paper—or, at least, it was rumoured that they would produce one; it never actually arrived. Rumour had it that the Green Paper might contain some provision for the licensing of minicabs, but the Government in their wisdom decided to withdraw it. I believe that we heard no more about the licensing of minicabs because, back in 1976, the Government decided that the licensing of minicabs would be inappropriate in London because of the special situation of the black cab.
London is very different from the rest of the country. Without doubt, it is a special case. In other large cities

—Birmingham, Manchester and so on—one will see black cabs, but not in anything like the numbers that one finds in London. I believe that the Government decided at that time that, although it was right to license minicabs in other areas, if they were to bring in the type of legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has described, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, for London, it would have a dramatic effect on the whole of the black cab trade. As a result, we have seen an increase in the number of black cabs in London, and we shall see an even greater increase as time goes on. The provisions in the 1976 Act as described by my hon. Friend would be dangerous for London, and I want to explain why.
Let us take the taxi meter first. We have heard that drivers of minicabs will have to register with the local authority in order to have a meter but that they will be able to charge whatever they like, as long as that charge has been registered with the local authority. In the black cab, however, the prices on the meter are governed by legislation. The Government decide each year what the fare to be charged in a black cab will be. This will cause a difference in fare structure, and people with minicabs will be able to charge whatever they like.
What about tourists? London has an abundance of attractions for the tourist—the Palace of Westminster, Buckingham palace, the Tower of London and all the others; indeed, the black cab itself is a great tourist feature. The many thousands of tourists will be charged exactly what the minicab driver wants to register with the local authority and charge per mile. There have been many cases of tourists arriving at Heathrow and travelling by minicab to central London and being charged something like £100. That is well known to the black cab trade, to the Department of Transport and to the Metropolitan police. It is very difficult to catch such people. It means that we can never compare like with like, because minicabs will charge one amount which they can choose and register, and black cabs will be charging an amount which is controlled by Government.
Let us now look at safety and the danger of a woman being raped by a minicab driver. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond has said about the tragic cases that he has described, but the problem is that, when those cab drivers register with a local authority, their backgrounds will not be investigated. In the black cab trade, before a licence is granted, the background of a driver is investigated and he is checked for a possible criminal record. This means that, although minicabs may carry a plate, we will be unable to stop undesirable people driving minicabs.
This legislation, therefore, is not a vast improvement. In many ways, we would all like to see a much greater tightening up and improvement, but this is not happening. This Bill will not lead to any more investigation of drivers' backgrounds——

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is very patient and did not intervene in my speech, and I will try to resist intervening in his, but, under the private hire vehicle provisions of the 1976 Act, section 57 has the power to require applicants to submit information and references. I have answered the point about the police computer. If any of that information were found to be inaccurate, the licence could


be revoked. As regards the airport, my hon. Friend must recognise that minicabs have restrictions on plying for hire at such places.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I feel that I have answered those points.

Mr. Bendall: I do not think that the points have been answered. The point I am trying to make is that, if a minicab driver goes to register with the local authority, under the provisions of the 1976 Act his background cannot be investigated in the same way as that of a black cab driver. My hon. Friend referred to a minicab driver who did not know the route. Black cab drivers in central London have to spend two years "on the knowledge" to gain a green badge.
If a black cab driver charges the wrong fare or refuses to take a passenger, he can be reported to the Metropolitan police. For some offences, the driver would lose his licence for a considerable time. In fact, I have known black cab drivers to lose their licences for ever if the offence was very serious. Therefore, the regulation of black cab drivers in London is stringent. I should like the provisions of the 1976 Act to be strengthened outside London, because people are far from happy about some of the things that are going on.
The black cab is unique to London. The laws to regulate and control black cabs have stood the test of time. Many of them go back to the days of the hackney carriage. They have evolved over many years. It would be tragic if there was to be a decline in the black cab trade, which might happen with the piecemeal legislation which is proposed. The Bill would lower standards.
Black cabs have to be inspected twice a year. My hon. Friend referred to vehicles in the provinces being inspected three times a year under the 1976 Act. If they were, it would be all right, but that does not happen. Black cabs in London are inspected twice a year by the Public Carriage Office. I cannot see 32 London boroughs setting up individual inspection areas and making their own arrangements for the licensing of minicabs. There might be different rules and regulations in each of the 32 boroughs. Nothing in the Bill provides for the overall registration or inspection of vehicles. It would be disastrous if different arrangements applied in the 32 boroughs.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the standards applicable to maintenance might be different in each London borough? If that were the case, there would be a hotch-potch of regulations which it would be impossible to enforce.

Mr. Bendall: Although certain standards are set out in the Bill, I find it difficult to believe that all 32 London boroughs will set up inspection arrangements to ensure that cabs are roadworthy. Inspection will be costly. Appointments have to be made. Sometimes there are long queues of black cabs waiting to be inspected, and the carriage office cannot get through all the work. If it is difficult to get through the inspections at the moment, what would happen if an additional 60,000 vehicles had to be inspected? I do not think that the Bill would lead to an improvement in vehicle maintenance. The only slight improvement is that the driver would have a badge and there would be a plate on his vehicle.
In regard to kerb crawling and touting, we all know that for many years it has been illegal for minicab drivers to ply for hire, but the drivers take no notice of that. If we go to Charing Cross or any London station on a Saturday night, or to the west end when the theatres and cinemas close, we see many mini-cabs plying illegally for hire. The Bill will not stop that. If mini-cabs are licensed, they will be given an air of respectability. The public will think that it is legal for them to ply for hire. When that happens, where will the black cab trade go?

Mr. Summerson: Down the drain.

Mr. Bendall: My hon. Friend has put the words in my mouth. It will go down the drain. What is the point of a black cab driver spending two years on the knowledge, which is very costly, if a minicab driver can ply for hire? I am sure hon. Members have seen people with little maps in front of them riding motor cycles around London; they are learning the routes. It takes enormous concentration and time for someone to learn the knowledge. Who will bother doing that if people in minicabs can charge more? People will not take the trouble to learn the knowledge if they think that they will not get a square deal. Kerb crawling will continue, and more and more minicab drivers will ply illegally for hire. The Bill will not stop that.

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is expressing a genuine fear of hackney cab drivers. I am a great fan of the black cab trade, and I would not advise anyone to travel any other way. But if a minicab touts for business currently, there is no way he can be stopped unless he is arrested on the spot, because it is an arrestable offence. At the moment, all one has is his number plate.
If a person touts for business after clause 4 becomes law, there will be an identifying mark on the back of the cab. It will carry the name of the licensing authority and a member of the public could say, "I saw that cab stopping when someone put up his hand. That is an offence and his licence should be taken away." The licensing authority could do that. If clause 4 becomes law, it will be easier to catch up with drivers who tout for trade.

Mr. Bendall: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not think that that would happen. Often people are happy to get a minicab late at night when they come out of a theatre or a club. The Bill would give minicabs an air of respectability, and as a result they will tout and kerb-crawl more than they do now. There is no way in which that can be stopped, because there are only five enforcement officers in Greater London, and—given the number of minicabs in London—that would be a joke.
I do not want to see the destruction of the black cab trade. That could happen if we do not compare like with like, and the black cab is given a rough deal compared with the minicab.
There are other consequences of the Bill that my colleagues have not thought about. The unique black cab produced in England comes in two forms: the Metro and the Fairway—the 4X—which is a famous cab produced in Coventry. Large numbers of those cabs are now exported to, for instance, Japan and Kenya. In the event of a reduction in the number of people purchasing black cabs and not prepared to do the knowledge, our export industry would suffer. If black cabs were not produced in great numbers, people would not buy them, because they would no longer be able to compete: they would be downtrodden,


as it were, by minicabs crawling along and touting for business. Eventually, our export industry could be destroyed, as no one would be buying black cabs for home use.
Another problem is the enormous number of fleet cabs. If the black cabs were to disappear, there would be unemployment in the factories producing them, and among drivers. The back-up servicing would also be hit. I do not know if any of my hon. Friends are aware of it, but behind the black cab trade there is an enormous back-up service in little railway arches. If there were no black cabs to service, what would happen to those firms? That would start up a continuous problem, and I do not know where it would end.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes that there are not enough cabs in outer London. Whereas inner London is called the green badge area, outer London is the yellow badge area. In outer London, drivers used to have to train for two years or so. Outer London is split up into geographical areas, and the number of those areas has now increased. The Public Carriage Office and the Government are trying to reduce the time for the knowledge training in outer London, which in due course should increase the number of black cabs available in outer London.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes said, the public feel safer in a black cab. Those cabs are purpose-built for safety. They have been specially designed over the years to be used in large cities and conurbations such as London. The cab has a first-class turning circle, which other vehicles such as minicabs do not have. Surely we should be encouraging those black cabs in our cities, as we already have enough transport problems in London. The black cabs are part of the co-ordinated transport system of London. They are purpose-built vehicles with the right turning circle, the right safety and the right insurance. We should be discouraging the wrong vehicles, such as the minicabs——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Japanese minicab.

Mr. Bendall: As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) points out, someone will soon try to step into our export markets. Japan and Germany are already working on a cab. It would be tragic if something that is unique to Britain, which is helping our exports, were ruined.
Let me say a few words about the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes that I admire what it is trying to achieve, and in no way do I want to stop those achievements; however, I do not want to see those achievements used to the detriment of others. The black cab trade has been built up since the early 1900s. It would be tragic if taxi drivers asked what was the point of paying £18,000 or £19,000—with hire purchase—to buy a specialised black cab when they could buy an old banger to do the job. There would then be a lowering of standards and the ruination of the taxi trade. While I sympathise with what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, I think that it would be tragic if, as a result of the Bill, the black cab trade in London was ruined.
Black-cab drivers are highly intelligent people, interesting and well read in politics and other matters. They are always happy to discuss politics, and no doubt many hon. Members in the past few weeks have been

tapped up about the Bill, as they are concerned about its possible effects. I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that he is being got at too harshly.
In the years that I have represented taxi drivers in my constituency, I have always found them generous and kind people. My hon. Friend may not be aware of the amount of charitable work that they do, such as arranging visits to coastal resorts for disabled children. That takes place because of the closeness of the trade and the uniqueness of the black cab. We do not want to lose the black cab: that would be a tragedy for London, and a tragedy in general.
I am not attempting to stop the progress of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, but the black cab must be preserved in the years ahead.
Although they seem to be staying neutral tonight, last year the Government seemed quite happy for many cabs not to be licensed, but they have tried to help by improving the yellow badge area outside London and in a number of other areas which will be added to the scheme. I learn from my friends in the trade that that improvement has already started. Many more people have applied for yellow badges in those areas, and I am sure that all this will help to build up the black cab trade, not hasten its decline. That is why I am worried that, even before the improvement gathers momentum, the laws for London might be changed. If we were talking about somewhere outside London where there was no black cab trade, I should have no hesitation in supporting the Bill, although I should like more stringent controls applied outside London.
One of the greatest anxieties of the black cab drivers is to do with minicabs being able to charge whatever they like, and being able to ply for hire. One night in Birmingham recently, the police decided to purge illegal minicabs that were plying for hire. A great deal of police time and a great many police were involved in the exercise, and they caught about 45 people that evening.
More recently still, there have been many similar problems in Reading. I quote, for example, from the Bracknell Post, which, in an article headlined "Unsafe scandal of town cabbies", states:
A major crackdown on Reading's private hire minicabs has revealed 40 per cent. have been carrying passengers in cars branded unsafe".
That is covered by the 1976 Act.
An investigation by Reading Borough Council and police has revealed some drivers have been carrying passengers without proper insurance".
That too is covered by the 1976 Act.
A borough council spokesman said: 'If they were involved in an accident these passengers would not have been able to claim a penny'. In the past five months, 19 drivers have lost their licences because they did not have passenger liability insurance.
These people have been caught, but many are not caught, and the article goes on to prove that the 1976 Act is not working properly because it is not being properly enforced by local authorities.
If we introduce measures similar to the Act in London, we shall be in danger of ruining our entire black cab trade, and that would be an utter disaster for London.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: It is irritating enough to find oneself on the Front Bench on the evening of the local government elections but it is even more so to find oneself here to discuss a private Bill which, although undoubtedly well intentioned, signally fails to


live up to the claims made for it in clause 4. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) said that the promoters did not intend clause 4 to harm the black cab trade. We accept that assurance of intent, but the effects that are anticipated are a matter of judgment and opinion. That is why the instruction to the Committee tabled by the hon. Gentleman is no guarantee of a satisfactory outcome to the differences between us.
We accept that the promoters' intention is to use clause 4 against the disreputable part of the minicab trade, but our concern is that the clause cannot achieve the objectives of safe and fair travel—objectives which I believe we all support for the taxi trade.
Over the past few weeks we have made our position clear to the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities, and we understand that it now accepts the need for reconsideration. We further understand that both Labour-controlled and the Tory-controlled associations have sought to control minicabs because of the problems which are clear to all of us who live or work in London. We sympathise entirely with their concerns.
Of course, there are legitimate operators who try to offer a fair service, but there are many who are disreputable. All too often, minicab vehicles are in a bad condition, dirty and unsafe. All too often, the drivers have little knowledge of the routes, and some of them are unsafe drivers. I am especially aware of the dangers that women riding in minicabs face in a capital city. A recent survey for London Weekend Television revealed that 4 per cent. of women questioned said that they had been attacked by drivers when travelling home at night. Obviously, action is required.
There is an unmet demand for taxis in London and it is women, particularly, who increasingly seek safe transport after dark and in suburban areas, where other form of public transport may be infrequent or even non-existent at night. Hiring a minicab is often the only solution to getting home for a person without a car or for a driver who has sensibly left the car at home when attending a social function.
We in the Labour party are clear about the need for the taxi trade as a vital supplement to other forms of public transport in London. The problem is that the best service in the world—the black cab trade—has not been able or allowed to keep up with growing public demand. That is Labour's starting point—the recognition of a public need and of an existing service with the highest possible public standards. The challenge for all of us—politicians, local authorities and the cab trade—is how to raise the standards of all who would ply for hire, and how to satisfy the increased demand for taxi travel.
Would clause 4 meet our aims? The answer is a definitive no. We accept the case that has been pressed upon us, particularly by the Transport and General Workers Union. I acknowledge an interest, albeit not a personal financial interest, in that I am sponsored by that union. I wish to rehearse the critique of clause 4 put to us by Peter Martindale of the TGWU. First, no uniform or minimal training standard for drivers is required in the clause. Evidence given to the Lords in Committee shows that even the most enthusiastic councils do not propose to provide training but propose only to test topographical

knowledge of their own boroughs. It is therefore possible that a person who is licensed will know one borough but will not know the next into which he frequently moves.
No uniform or minimum vehicle standard is required in the clause, which is appalling given that these cars will travel about 100,000 miles a year. The vehicles will not be required to have a partition fitted for driver protection or for the passenger privacy which a GLC survey showed women preferred in cabs. The vehicles will not be required to be wheelchair accessible. Wheelchair accessibility is one of the radical and progressive steps that have been taken by the taxicab trade in London and for which all travellers with disabilities are deeply grateful.
Worst of all, the lack of access to police records means that there would be no certainty that drivers licensed under clause 4 would not have a record of criminal personal assault or even rape. Clause 4 lays down no means of vehicle recognition or identification, and the absence of unified standards will make recognition of licensed vehicles impossible. London's many visitors will be particularly vulnerable to "licensed minicabs", as opposed to "licensed cabs".
Residents of London will also be confused by the use of standard saloon cars. A third tier will arise illegally, as it has elsewhere, and will find it easier to work where it can masquerade as legally licensed vehicles. No borough would be able to tackle vehicle recognition because it would not be able to exclude vehicles which had been registered elsewhere.
The Bill does nothing to tackle the problem of the many people working in the minicab sector who have little commitment to the industry. Therefore, the sanctions imposed by the Bill in terms of the removal of licences would be ineffective.

Mr. Hanley: If legislation were introduced to tighten the points that the Transport and General Workers Union has made—and if a clause similar to clause 4 were introduced to bring London into line with the rest of the country before that legislation was introduced—would the hon. Lady and her party support it?

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman presents a hypothetical case. More important, he fails to acknowledge that London is quite different from the rest of the country. Black cabs operate to extremely high standards which do not exist elsewhere. London's high standards should be observed by the rest of the trade. We should not seek to introduce a two-tier system which, where it exists, has immense problems.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The House will be interested by the hon. Lady's speech. It sounds as though she is in favour of minicab licensing in the circumstances that she has described. She is making an important statement on behalf of her party. The House would appreciate her confirmation that she is in favour of minicab licensing if those conditions can be achieved——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it would be in order to concentrate on the Bill.

Ms. Ruddock: As you suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should proceed. I will make it absolutely clear to the Minister and his colleagues exactly where the Labour party stands on the issue.

Mr. Hanley: Is the hon. Lady saying that, even if legislation were introduced to tighten the deficiencies of the minicab trade in London along the lines recommended by the Transport and General Workers Union, it would be unacceptable to the Labour party as it would refer to minicabs in London? Is the Labour party's intention that there should be only black cabs in London and not minicabs? I am seeking clarification from the hon. Lady.

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman is seeking not clarification but to put words into my mouth. The standards that should be met by the cab trade already exist in London—those to which black cabs are subject.
I said how local authorities would not be able to deal with the difficulties of vehicle recognition. The Bill does nothing to tackle the problem of the many working in the minicab sector who have little commitment to the industry. Therefore, the sanctions that the Bill provides would be ineffective. The loss of a licence in one borough would not preclude the driver from working in another borough.
As the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes acknowledged, the Bill provides no powers for boroughs to set fare levels within their own area, let alone within London; nor does it require meters to be fitted to the vehicles that they license. Experience from outside London shows that there are many difficulties with legislation such as this, and there is a case for tightening the legislation which applies to other parts of the country. The recent "Operation Cinderella", which has already been referred to and which was carried out by the police and trading standards authority in Birmingham, showed how acute the problems are.
We believe that the Bill is incapable of reforming the fly-by-night nature of minicabs. At best, it might provide a veneer of respectability. Its failure to lay down training for drivers, design and maintenance of vehicles and methods of operation will not develop the commitment to the taxi industry that is shown by London cabbies.
London's cabs are acknowledged to be the best in the world. It is our contention, therefore, that we should first consider providing all the public with a first-class taxi service by extending the regulation of the best system in the world while phasing out minicabs, which are agreed to be unsatisfactory. In other words, we should base London's future cab service on what is good rather than what is bad.
That is the policy of the London Taxi Board, which is made up, I remind hon. Members, of the following cab trade representative bodies: the London Motor Cab Proprietors Association, the Cab Fleet Owners, the Joint Radio Taxis Association, Taxi Radio Circuits, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, the Owner Drivers Society and the cab section of the Transport and General Workers Union.
The Labour party is not arguing a protectionist case. Indeed, we believe that at times cab drivers have been their own worst enemies. It is not difficult to find a Member of Parliament who can testify to the number of refusals by black cabs to accept his or her fare home after a late-night sitting.
There must be reforms in the licensing and training of black cab drivers to achieve expansion of their numbers and greater flexibility in the hours that they are prepared to work, while still maintaining the same high standards.
I am delighted to learn of the changes that are already under way, to which the hon. Member for Ilford, North

(Mr. Bendall) referred. The London Taxi Board has negotiated a change in the knowledge of London training with the Public Carriage Office to allow new cab drivers to obtain a licence for a sector of suburban London in approximately four months. The scheme has been implemented since last September, and in January there were 990 participants who, after a high standard of training, will get a first-class job. The new scheme is capable of rapidly expanding London's cab trade to the suburbs, where it is most needed.
The taxi board has published draft proposals which, when adopted, will apply the most up-to-date techniques to the knowledge and, with the adoption of computerised radio systems in cabs, will facilitate further expansion in the cab trade to provide thousands of first-class jobs and a first-class service for all, particularly for those with disabilities and for women. Cabs are wheelchair-accessible and have an internal partition between driver and passengers for discretion and safety, which women acknowledge that they particularly want.
The Labour party supports the London Taxi Board's plan to reform the knowledge training. Standards will be maintained, but the time taken to complete it will be reduced. I believe that that is the key to making more cabs available.
I have no doubt that the travelling public want a safe, recognisable vehicle with a meter showing a regulated fare driven by a well trained and vetted driver. Those standards are available within the black cab trade, and they are the standards for which we should aim, but they are not met by clause 4 of the Bill.
Labour's opposition is not a case for inaction or an acceptance that London should continue to play host to a huge, unregulated sector of minicab businesses. We accept the need for urgent action. To that end, we are setting up a working party to include trade and local authority representatives. We will publish a plan through which, we believe, the problem can be solved. It will bring into being sufficient numbers of cabs of sufficiently high standards—the black cabs—to meet the need. It will take time, but we will outline the programme and recommend it to the Minister and Conservative Members. It will be consistent with our overall plan for an integrated and co-ordinated public transport system, under the auspices of a strategic authority for London. Planning for London, especially in transport, must be on a London-wide basis. We know that the two London boroughs associations support that general view. We hope very much that through our working party we can point the way towards solving what we acknowledge to be a very serious problem.
I am happy to support other clauses in the Bill, which provide a number of sensible measures. As a London Member with an inner-city constituency, I welcome all reasonable measures for crime prevention and the means afforded to local authorities to take those measures. I also welcome the proposal to reinstate essential supplies. My constituents, who are among the poorest in London, are the most likely to find themselves facing debt and the misery and insecurity of cut-offs under this Government's policies.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene now to give the Government's view. I shall be brief as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for the way in which he so helpfully introduced the Bill. I thank him for his kind words about me, but must emphasise that they were based merely on newspaper rumours. I have the greatest sympathy for him, because his motives for introducing the Bill have come under attack. I have no doubt that his motives were excellent, as was made quite clear in his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) put the contrary view with equal skill. That has led to an interesting debate.
I am pleased that all hon. Members who have spoken have paid tribute to the taxi trade in London. I shall remind the House of the view that I gave on 11 May 1989, when we concluded the review of taxis in London:
In the case of London, it has become clear that the high standards of service and propriety offered by taxis are highly valued by … the public. London passengers enjoy a quality of service based on purpose-built vehicles developed to enhance driver and passenger comfort. Their roadworthiness and cleanliness are ensured by standards set by the Public Carriage Office, and drivers must pass through rigorous driver testing."—[Official Report, 11 May 1989: Vol. 152, c. 486.]
I announced at that time that the Government had no intention to legislate.
Before I deal with clause 4, which is central to the debate, I shall comment on the other clauses. In general, the Government have no objection to the principle of London local authorities, as they are empowered to do by statute, promoting a Bill seeking additional general powers for the London area. With one exception—clause 6—all the provisions in the Bill to which Government Departments objected have been either withdrawn or disallowed by Committees in the other place. On clause 6, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, while having no objection to the purpose of the clause, considers that the powers are too widely drawn. Negotiations are continuing with the promoters to provide a more tightly drawn provision. I hope that the issue can be resolved satisfactorily if the Bill proceeds to Committee.
On the provision for licensing minicabs, when the Bill was introduced, the Government's response to what has since become clause 4 was that it seemed impracticable and that the case for licensing was not proven. The matter of practicability has since been addressed to some extent by the Bill's promoters, but I have to say that nothing has emerged greatly to strengthen the case for licensing.
With regard to practicability, the Government were concerned that simply extending the private hire licensing provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 would create 31 separate licensing authorities and consequent scope for the cross-border hiring confusion that sometimes exists outside the capital. The amendment since tabled by the Bill's promoters making vehicle, driver and operator licences issued by one London council valid in any other participating borough should ease much of the cross-border problem.
However, we are still concerned that confusion may arise about the public's expectations of control stringency compared with that actually applied by individual licensing boroughs. For example, it is possible that licence

applicants will migrate to particular boroughs where the most minimal standards required by the clause are applied, but then concentrate operations in more restrictive boroughs. No doubt such confusion could be overcome by the boroughs agreeing common licensing conditions, but it is only right to point out that there are still potential practical difficulties with the provision.
We considered the need to legislate on London's minicabs. Hon. Members may recall that the Department of Transport conducted a fundamental review of all taxi and private hire vehicle licensing legislation, which was completed in May of last year. During the review, reactions were obtained from the public, from licensing authorities and from those within the trades on the absence of minicab licensing in London. Allegations of malpractice in the trade were made then, as they are often made, but they were rarely supported by hard evidence. I was not content at that time to propose changes on the basis of the limited facts that I had before me. I felt that I did not have enough evidence about the extent of the problem, or sufficient evidence to suggest that licensing would deal with it. It was not clear in what way we could bring criminal record examination into play. For all those reasons, I decided against legislation.
Hon. Members have alluded to the Government's funding to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which is conducting research into passenger experiences with and perceptions of the London minicab trade to determine whether licensing is likely to make any difference to safety. The results of that research should be available 12 months from when it began, which was last January. Perhaps I should remind the House of what I said when I announced the Government's participation in that research:
I believe that taxis in London provide a safe and reliable service, and that the same is generally true of minicabs too. However, I am aware that some people feel anxious about travelling in unlicensed vehicles. There is, at present, very little firm evidence to establish whether this anxiety is justified and I welcome the proposal to gather evidence on this point.
There is a consideration, which some hon. Members have already touched upon, relating to the ability of licensing authorities to check on driver integrity. Complaints have recently been made to me by members of the licensed taxi trade, and in particular the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, about the alleged criminal element in the minicab trade and about the lack of provision for checks on drivers' police records in clause 4. It is right to point out that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 does not give provincial licensing authorities automatic access to the police records of licence applicants either for minicab drivers or taxi drivers, and that consequently clause 4 cannot give such access to London authorities.
Hon. Members will appreciate that this is neither the time nor the place to address the broader question of disclosure of information from police records. It is an issue that I know the Home Office has been reviewing. Suffice it to say that, while some hon. Members might consider that the fact that clause 4 does not offer criminal record checks is a reason to oppose it, others might, on balance, support the principle of extending to London the controls available to councils in the rest of the country.
Those are the Government's views on what we consider to be the main implications of clause 4. I should stress, as was said when the Government's view was given in another place, that, overall, the Government's opinion on clause 4 remains neutral.
I note that there are three petitioners against clause 4, and they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee if the House passes the Bill. The Committee will be in a good position to examine in detail the issues involved and will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.

Mr. John Cartwright: The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) made a powerful case for the principle of regulating the private hire trade in London, and particularly the minicab end of the trade. I was surprised that the Minister did not seem to have the same experience as many of us of the deficiences of the less reputable minicab operators. Many of us have had experience of drivers who do not know the basic elements of London geography. A year or so ago, I had the misfortune to be collected by a minicab that had been sent by a London radio station, which should have known better. After five minutes going in the wrong direction, it became clear that the driver had no idea how to get to the radio station. I had to direct him to the radio station, from there to Broadcasting house and then back to Westminster. That is not an unusual experience with such drivers.
We have all had experience of rusting vehicles with bits falling off them that are both unsafe and unsavoury in which to travel. There is also legitimate concern about the standard of drivers. I used to he a magistrate in the east end of London. A distressing number of offenders who appeared before me gave as their occupation either company director of minicab driver.

Mr. Norris: Or both.

Mr. Cartwright: Yes, or both. That underlines the problems about which we are concerned.
I have had experience of another problem in the past year or so. That is the mushrooming of 24-hour a day minicab offices in residential areas, which set up without the benefit of planning permission. My constituents have all the noise of cars arriving, doors slamming, drivers shouting and radios blaring 24 hours a day. Although planning permission has not been granted, it takes local authorities a long time to sort out such problems. If they cannot enforce the planning regulations, there must be a question mark over whether they can enforce the powers given in clause 4.
The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes made a powerful case for the principle of regulation and the most stringent enforcement of high standards on the minicab trade. However, he did not persuade me, or other hon. Members, that clause 4 is the right way to achieve that objective. It is clear that the reputable end of the private hire trade wants some system of regulation, but it is also clear that it has reservations about clause 4. A number of us have received a letter from the London Private Hire Car Association dated 1 May. It says:
Our reservations about implementation arise out of the problems that have occurred in putting into effect the 1976 Act outside London and the proposals that implementation within London should be by the 32 London Boroughs allowing for wide differences in requirements.
Other hon. Members, including the Minister, have referred to that point.
It is ridiculous that 32 boroughs should apply different standards and introduce different systems and procedures.

London is an entity. It is not a collection of 32 self-governing islands. It needs a uniform system and, if such a system is to be brought in, it should come after the most careful investigation by the Department of Transport and through Government legislation rather than legislation from the boroughs.
I am somewhat surprised that the London boroughs should be seeking these additional powers. Most local authorities are busy telling us with every breath that they can muster that they cannot use the powers they have because they do not have enough resources. Here they are in London, apparently looking for new powers—powers that need resources. We have already heard that they will not have access to criminal records so as to carry out the careful scrutiny of minicab drivers that many of us think is essential in any system of regulation.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman said that he finds it strange that the 32 London boroughs are asking for extra powers, and I agree. However, there is a possible reason why they have been driven that way—the absence of a Greater London council. We have all agreed—even the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—that there is something wrong with the minicab trade in London. It is conceivable that the authorities, also agreeing, thought that somebody had to find some method of control and have come up with this, which is little more than a dog's dinner. They are trying to make a seven-course dinner out of a pan of boiling water. They are searching for some control, but that control should be exercised by a Greater London authority.

Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Member makes a fair case. It would have been a more persuasive case had the boroughs concerned been willing to agree to a standard system that each would have operated on a voluntary basis. It may have been easier to have it imposed by a supra-London authority, but if the 32 boroughs had wanted an effective system, it would have been better if they had got together and agreed that they would do it the same way. Sadly, that has not happened.
If the boroughs are to do the job effectively, they will need resources. They will have to take on staff, set up administrations and check vehicles. I doubt whether they will check them three times a year, which is what the Bill provides for, but if they are to do the job properly, duties will fall on them and extra costs will be incurred. We know that the boroughs will not get extra money from the Government, and I find it hard to believe that they have the money already. My local authority—poll tax-capped as it is—will have to cut its spending in the current financial year by £10 million. I cannot believe that it will have enough spare resources to take on this additional responsibility. We may be told that this scheme will be self-financing and that the income from licences will be sufficient to meet all the costs involved. Having been in local government for quite a few years, I am suspicious of anything presented as self-financing, because nine times out of 10 it turns out to be nothing of the sort.
Although this proposal is well meaning, it will create the impression of regulation whereas any system that flows from clause 4 will not provide the stringent and effective enforcement for which the public has every right to look. Therefore, I urge the sponsor of the Bill to withdraw clause 4.

Mr. Steve Norris: I begin by echoing the commendation of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has had to plough a difficult furrow in sponsoring the Bill. Much of the Bill is unexceptionable, however, and there is no doubt about his bona fides when it comes to clause 4, which has detained us this evening. It would be churlish not to admit that one of the greatest mistakes that one can make in politics is to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. My hon. Friend presented an interesting case that suggested exactly that—he said that we should allow some change to be made to the regulations on minicabs in London but less than that which many of us who intend to oppose clause 4 would wish. His intentions are clearly honourable and commend him greatly to all those who are concerned about the safety and regulation of the cab trade in London.
The rumours about the imminent move of my hon. Friend the Minister from one tower of Marsham street to another are rife. This evening, he handled the "on the one hand, on the other hand" argument with great dexterity. He proved the greatest of all adages in politics, which is that if someone cannot ride two horses at the same time he should not be in the circus. I have no doubt that on his move to the Department of the Environment to take up new duties, he will, if the appointment is confirmed, demonstrate dexterity as a bareback rider comparable to that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a trapeze artist.
The title of the Bill is the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill, not the London taxi Bill. I say that because I am especially interested, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes is, in clause 6, which relates to the crime prevention powers of local authorities. There is a respectable pedigree for the inclusion of the clause in the Bill by the authorities, not least the eighth Home Office circular of 1984. That circular stressed that the police alone could not be expected to be responsible for preventing crime in the community. It stated, in effect, that crime in the community could be prevented only when the community as a whole accepted that crime is its problem. As part of that, everyone has a responsibility, personal and corporate in his individual life and business life, to do something about crime.
The most telling illustration was that even the Department of Energy is responsible in part for the prevention of crime. In many London estates, the most frequently committed crime is that of breaking into utility meters. Coinless meters eliminate that offence, but the speed with which that sort of meter is installed is, or has been in the past, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. There is a link with crime, even with a Department that is as far removed from it, ostensibly, as the Department of Energy. With local authorities, the link is even more powerful. The authorities have a key role in the prevention of crime, and one of my greatest regrets is that in general debate we do not recognise that local authorities, whether or not they are guilty of mini-imperialism, and whether or not it is right to restrict them to the provision of a number of basic services or to regard them as having a more general duty, have a

unique status as enablers in the community to ensure that effective crime prevention measures are developed to the benefit of everyone.
Crime Concern is the charitable trust that I established in 1988, with Home Office support, to promote voluntary crime prevention. I am delighted by the interest that is being shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who is a Government Whip. The trust has been working with many local authorities on the establishment of area crime reduction programmes, which are an effective implementation of the safer cities initiative. There are co-ordinators in post in Luton, Sandwell and Solihull, and recruitments are in hand in Kirklees, Halton, and Suffolk. Programmes are agreed in Peterborough, Plymouth, Walsall and elsewhere. It is being demonstrated in all these places that local authorities, hand-in-hand with voluntary organisations, and with the co-operation of the police, can be effective focal points for crime prevention initiatives.
My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the reservations that have been expressed by the Department of the Environment about the necessity of clause 6, and in some ways I share those reservations. The work to private dwellings and commercial premises described in clause 6(2) could be carried out by a housing authority, facilities for self-defence classes could be provided under education or social services powers, facilities for vocational training courses could be provided under education powers, facilities for counselling victims of crime could be, and frequently are, undertaken by local authorities or sponsored by local authorities under their social services powers, and many of the facilities necessary for the undertaking of research to aid crime prevention do not require particular funding. Many in the Home Office would argue that we suffer from a plethora rather than a dearth of research and that that is not a priority for crime prevention work.
There can be no great objection to the general move to put local authorities in the centre of the frame on crime prevention, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, but I share the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on whether the particular form of words in the Bill is necessary for the advancement of that objective.
Let me deal now with the notorious clause 4—words which must be strangely redolent to Labour Members, not to mention the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) who will in his time have entered into the odd debate on the significance of clause 4. However, I shall not embarrass him further. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), who represents a substantial number of London black cab drivers, did an excellent job in cogently explaining why clause 4 is deficient. He was ably supported by the hon. Members for Deptford and for Woolwich.
I do not doubt that the London cab system is the best in the world. I know of no other system which provides the breadth of security, safety and reassurance to the casual user that is provided by the London taxi system. Not only is it a tourist attraction in itself, it is an ambassador at home for those here on holiday.
With some honourable and often hilarious exceptions, cab drivers are, in the main, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said, charming, generous, witty,


friendly, amusing and, most of all, they get to where they have to go honourably by the quickest route whether or not the passenger's first language is English.
Epping Forest is a far cry from Oxford, East where such was the surprise at my election that when I went to the drinks party afterwards my supporters said they they were delighted that I had won but that they never thought I would do it, implying that if they had thought so they would have been much more careful in selecting their candidate. At Epping Forest I learnt quickly that the constituency slogan was, "Tax are things for keeping down the stair carpet." I thought that that referred to income tax, but I later found that it had a more general application. My constituents are vigorous in their defence of free enterprise and a low taxation economy. As such, I value their opinions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes referred to his Ghanaian barrister who, after a week in Britain, decided to become a minicab driver without knowing the way to the House of Commons. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Minister was unable to obtain sufficient evidence of the deficiencies of the minicab trade. I share the casual experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, which I venture to suggest will be familiar to most other people who have used them.
The operation of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 has been less than adequate. Although well intentioned, sadly, that Act led to the creation of no fewer than three tiers of operation. The first is the London black cab. Beneath that comes the regulated minicab, and the third tier is the unregulated minicab. It is not exceptional to find a minicab driver who does not have a clue where he is going and who charges whatever fare he thinks one can stand according to the cut of one's suit—it is more likely to be the rule. The more that I speak to people about the Bill and about minicabs in general, the clearer it becomes that the experience I describe is the norm throughout the country. It goes beyond the instances recounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes.
When there is a system of using ordinary cars to which minimal alterations are made, and subject only to minimal servicing, a sub-culture is created—and that is where the danger lies. As to the attitude of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), who could not be present this evening, asked me specifically to make it clear that she, as a trustee of that trust, is very concerned about the operation of clause 4. As she points out, the woman who enters a minicab alone, and perhaps at night, is confronted by someone who she has never met before in her life. One can stop right there—one need not elaborate on that statement. The attendant risks if one cannot be sure that the person driving that cab is not someone whose criminal record has been examined, whose general bona fides have been scrutinised, and whose general temperament has also been tested by an examination process, are self-evident.
I move on from the assertion that one advantage of the well-regulated London cab system is that its drivers know where they are going to make the point that London cabs are safe in terms of the stringent standards applied by the Public Carriage Office. It is always amusing to hear cabbies complain in vitriolic terms about the scrupulous

standards applied, but no doubt those standards operate in the interests of the general public—and they are certainly higher than the standards anticipated by the Bill.
I do not share the view that applicants for licences would flood to those boroughs where the minimal knowledge requirements applied. My belief is that they would flood to those where the least stringent servicing requirements were enforced. There certainly would be a minimum standard of minicabs—the standard of the least stringent borough in terms of inspection and servicing, which would be highly undesirable.
Not only are London cabs safe, but London cabbies are vetted.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a growing practice in the west end late at night of private cars plying for hire, and that to allow clause 4 to reach the statute book would exacerbate that situation? Given the incidence of attacks with which we are already familiar, a considerable number of Londoners, never mind tourists, would be placed at considerable risk if we were to permit a badly drafted Bill and an ill-advised clause to pass into law.

Mr. Norris: I agree with the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North who made the telling observation that one usually needs a cab just at the very moment when they all seem to disappear. In those circumstances, any port is welcome in a storm. If a cab or what purports to be a cab pulls up late at night, the human reaction is to leap aboard. That is the danger and the nub of the matter.
I now return to the way in which cabbies are vetted because some elements have not yet been mentioned. First, we have heard about the requirement that they should be knowledgeable about the routes that they will ply. I take that as a sine qua non. There is every intention of referring to that requirement in clause 4. Secondly, as I remember vividly from that wonderfully amusing play by Jack Rosenthal called "The Knowledge", part of the tortuous process which the cabbie must undergo to obtain knowledge is a personality test. An endeavour is made to ascertain whether those who wish to ply for hire as a driver have the temperament appropriate to an extremely stressful job. That is an important requirement which we should not overlook.
The third and most important requirement is the thorough vetting of the applicant's criminal record to ensure, rightly—we cannot stress this too much—that whoever holds one of those prized green or yellow badges is fit to take not only a person whom he or she has never met but property to a distant location. The present facilities in London allow for that. It is common for cab drivers to be entrusted with property to be conveyed from one point to another without the consignor having to worry about the bona fides of the driver. I have known of young children being entrusted to cab drivers to be taken from one address in London to another. That is the most marvellous commendation and one of which to be proud.
The crux of the argument is whether we should allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. A contrary principle is also involved. It is that if we allow clause 4 into law—it would effectively mean that the standards of the 1976 Act would also apply in London—we shall live with it for many years to come. That is the reality of legislation.


We would deem ourselves to have dealt with the problem. That simply would not be good enough because the problem, as evidenced elsewhere in the country, and as many hon. Members know, is that the standards laid down by that Act, albeit with good intentions, simply have not created the right conditions. It is no exaggeration to say that people are less safe outside London in areas where the black cab system does not operate than they are in London when they use black cabs.
I notice the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in his place and attentive as ever. He, too, has drivers as constituents and shares my experience and that of all London Members and London regional Members that that is undoubtedly the case. One of the greatest assets of our transport infrastructure is that we can rely on standards applied by the Metropolitan police in the licensing of London cabs. Sadly, that facility is not available to those who pick up a cab, for example, at a station in most of the major termini in Britain.

Mr. Arbuthnot: rose——

Mr. Norris: I note that my hon. Friend, who has several interested constituents and who is my distinguished neighbour in Wanstead and Woodford, wishes to intervene.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is the problem partly that we would deem ourselves to have dealt with the problem and that many female passengers travelling in London now would also believe that? They would be lulled into a sense of security that would be illusory and false.

Mr. Norris: That is absolutely correct and my hon. Friend expresses the problem well. The veneer of respectability—a phrase used by other hon. Members—would apply to minicabs if the clause was passed into law and that is the precise danger to which my hon. Friends have alluded.
The dilemma is whether we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and oppose the clause or accept that we cannot allow a deficient principle to pass into law. There is ample evidence elsewhere in the country to suggest that the principle is deficient. With the greatest regret and with the greatest respect for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, I believe that we must reject the clause.
The clause does not relate to competition and it is not a proposal designed to extend a great free-market principle to the carriage of persons about London. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said that between 800 and 1,000 new licences are issued every year and that the new system of licensing those from outer London in more zones than hitherto is likely to lead to an increase in the number of those licences issued. The hon. Member for Deptford also said that something is being done about that problem. We are making progress to help those who cannot currently obtain a black cab licence.
One may argue that competitive forces may, on occasions, drive down the cost of a minicab, but that is not surprising when one considers the investment required for safety in the proper London cab and the investment required in terms of time to acquire the "knowledge"—cab

drivers estimate that it takes up to 650 hours. In terms of a reasonable rate of pay, the time spent to acquire it represents an investment of about £4,000.
A minicab can be cheaper than a black cab, but is it like for like? I am afraid the answer is no and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford has not accurately observed that we would still be offering London people a two-tier system, if not a three-tier system—one which operates dangerously elsewhere. Sadly, the lower two tiers would be deficient.
I hope that many of the Bill's provisions can be retained, but, if necessary, my hon. Friends and I who live with this problem in London will be obliged to oppose its further passage. In many ways I regret that decision, but I hope that the House will accept that the price we are being asked to pay in terms of clause 4 is too high.

Mr. Paul Boateng: This is a modest but nevertheless important Bill of a completely uncontroversial nature except in one respect.
One gives wholehearted support to the provisions in the Bill which deal with the restoration of water, gas and electricity services. Such restoration will be of concern to many of our constituents who are confronted with that problem. I welcome all that is said about crime prevention. It is vital that we should spend more time and money on counselling the victims of crime and on the other laudable crime prevention measures outlined in the Bill. I hope that all those measures will proceed—but not clause 4, which is of a different ilk. It has been hastily brought to the House, it is ill-conceived and I fear that it would have the reverse effect of that intended by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley).

Mr. Hanley: rose——

Mr. Boateng: I will give way in due course. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that he has erred in this respect.

Mr. Hanley: rose——

Mr. Boateng: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Considering that good is being held back by the presence of clause 4, that clause should be allowed to disappear quietly so that the good may proceed. I commend that course to the hon. Gentleman. I give way to him in the hope that he will accept my advice, in which case I need speak no more.

Mr. Hanley: I rise simply to explain to the hon. Gentleman, who was not here earlier, that this is not a private Member's Bill. I am not its promoter. I am merely introducing it on behalf of 31 London boroughs, including all the Labour London boroughs. The hon. Gentleman should therefore not blame me for any aspects of the measure of which he disapproves. He must blame his own council, which is a sponsor of the Bill, including clause 4.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. I was not for one moment blaming him for doing what he feels that he must do.

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is being somewhat disingenuous. If in the course of this debate he would tell the sponsors of the Bill, who are usually present at such discussions, that to hon. Members


who represent London constituencies—including myself—clause 4 is totally unacceptable and must be removed from the measure, he could report their view to the House before the conclusion of the debate.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is as perceptive as ever. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes is being somewhat disingenuous, though not for the first time.

Mr. Hanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is himself being disingenuous in view of the fact that the sponsors include his local authority and that of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
The Suzy Lamplugh Trust is conducting research with a grant of up to £20,500 from the Department of Transport and is endeavouring, with the Police Foundation, to raise a matching sum. I hope that that research will continue in the coming year and will result in legislation which the hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Islington, South and Finsbury will be able to support.
It is with regret, in view of their remarks, that I give an undertaking that the promoters, including the hon. Gentleman's local authority, will ask in Committee that the clause, together with schedule 2, be withdrawn.

Mr. Boateng: One welcomes those occasions when good sense prevails, particularly in the case of one's own local authority. I am delighted to hear the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes promoting the cause of my local authority so ably and effectively, and I hope that he will promote the welfare of my area on other occasions, too.
We must not overlook the serious point that is raised. I am a patron of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which does much good and important work, but that has not stopped me opposing clause 4 root and branch. Because I support the work of the trust and because safety and security, particularly for women, are vital, we must nurture, enhance and extend the role of the black cab rather than do anything to diminish it.
The House must review carefully the results of the research being undertaken and it may be necessary for legislation to be introduced in due course. I am sure that that will be welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House when it comes forward. For enabling the debate to take place, those who promote the Bill deserve our thanks.
I want us to bear in mind one fact that was put most cogently by a constituent, Mrs. Elsie Dellar of Kensal Rise, who wrote to me. The House will need to consider what she said when it considers legislation once the results of the research currently commissioned are available. She asked me and my colleagues to answer the following few, but vital, questions. First, she asked whether the licensed minicab drivers would have to give up two years to do the knowledge. She further asked:
Would their vehicles have to have a complete overhaul once a year? Would their meters be sealed and checked? Would they be checked for any criminal offence or record? Would they have medical checks? Would they use vehicles specified by the carriage office? If to all these questions the answer is yes then by all means license them because they would be what they should be—a London cabbie.
That says it all.
Mrs. Dellar continues that if the answers are no and my colleagues and I vote for minicabs to be licensed, we will be giving the public over to any person who wants to drive a car without any effective control whatsoever over the

circumstances in which they drive it and the peril that they may cause to the public. Such people must be viewed with a great deal of circumspection.
It is impossible to water down the qualities that need to be possessed by London cabbies, who are the pride not only of our nation, but of all those from wherever in the world who care about how these tasks are performed. Cab systems in the rest of the world are deficient in every respect when compared with ours. We must build on the useful debate that we have had today and of which we shall no doubt hear more so as to strengthen the black cab's position and not diminish it.

Mr. Patrick Ground: I shall make two short points because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. First, I am not convinced of the need for a separate licensing system for private hire vehicles in London. I have used minicabs and black cabs for many years, and my experience of both has been satisfactory. I endorse everything that has been said about the standards of black cabs and accept that that is the standard for which to aim. However, I am not satisfied, from the anecdotes that have been told and the results of the review carried out by the Department of Transport, that there is sufficient hard evidence to justify the sort of system that we are being asked to consider tonight. I want to see much more hard evidence before I am prepared to be convinced about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) complained about being in a minicab with a driver who did not know the way to the House of Commons. That may happen with minicabs, but I do not regard that as sufficient hardship to require an elaborate licensing system for minicabs.
The review being undertaken by the Home Office and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust has plainly not yet finished. It appears that it will not be completed until later this year, possibly next. The case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes shows that the consideration of the need for such legislation should await the conclusion of research that establishes the need for such a system.
Secondly, I am not convinced that, if the licensing of private hire vehicles in London is needed, individual London boroughs are the right bodies to exercise that control. We are down to 29 London boroughs now and it is very unsatisfactory to have a secondary system for London supported by only 29 boroughs. If I am right in detecting what has been said by Opposition Members, that number is likely to fall pretty quickly, so it is even more unsatisfactory that the system should enjoy such piecemeal support.
I am struck by the fact that there was no consultation between the London boroughs and the Licensed Taxi. Drivers Association or the formal associations and trade representatives of the private vehicle trade in London before this legislation was begun. It is a sign of inadequate consideration and preparation. After the House had decided in 1976 not to have this particular form of control for London, surely substantial study, consultation and consideration were required before attempting to change the position which Parliament had established by a deliberate act some 14 or 15 years earlier.
I strongly oppose clause 4, and I am delighted to hear that, on the strength of tonight's debate, my hon. Friend


the Member for Richmond and Barnes has committed himself to withdrawing the clause in Committee; retention of the clause would have made it extremely difficult for me to support the Bill.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: Ambrose Bierce, the late 19th century American satirist, defined a taxi as a tormenting vehicle in which a pirate jolts you through devious ways to the wrong place, where he robs you. That is not a description which I would like to apply to all minicab drivers, but some of them certainly come into that category. I must be a little careful in what I say about minicab drivers because I have several minicab firms in my constituency which, being in outer London, is not very well served by the black cab. On the whole, they do an excellent job, but there are pirates among them.
I have been extremely worried about the effect that clause 4 would have had on the black cab system which is well proved, well tried and excellent—a system without peer in the world and one at which people from other countries look with envy, wishing that they had something like it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on the way in which he introduced the Bill this evening, and I congratulate him warmly on the way in which he realised what hon. Members thought about clause 4 and decided to withdraw it. He has conducted himself extremely well tonight, and the whole House will be grateful to him.

Mr. Chris Smith: I join the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) in welcoming the important statement of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The decision of the hon. Gentleman and of the sponsors of the Bill to seek in Committee to withdraw clause 4 is welcome and means that we can allow the Bill to receive its Second Reading.
Some provisions in the Bill, especially in relation to the restoration of water, gas and electricity services, and to crime prevention, are welcome and we wish them good speed on to the statute book.
Clause 4 concerned me greatly. Many of my constituents drive black cabs and clause 4 represented a real threat to the black cab service in London. That threat has been effectively removed by the statement of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes. We will want to see what happens to the Bill in Committee, but the hon. Gentleman will stand by his word and we will have seen the last of clause 4. Perhaps more considered measures can be brought before us later which will pose less of a threat to the invaluable service which black cabs provide in our capital city.

Mr. Neil Thorne: The Bill has very few of its original clauses. When it started its life in the other place it had 58 clauses, but only eight are left. Some are very important and we wish to see them pass into law. Clause 4 has caused many of us difficulty. I welcome the

agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to seek the withdrawal of the clause in Committee. It was ill-advised to include it in the Bill for the simple reason that we are very fortunate in London to have such an excellent taxi service. The black cab system is the envy of the world and it would be wrong to undermine it in any way. Where it is competing with minicabs it is subject to unfair competition.
I am in favour of the law descending upon minicab firms and drivers who do not conduct their business properly, but it is not right to do it in the way suggested in the Bill. Some months ago a constituent of mine who was riding in a minicab found herself in an accident in which she was injured. The driver managed to take her out of the cab, put her on the roadside and drove off. She later contacted the office where she had made the booking but the people in the office denied any knowledge of the booking. That is typical of many minicab firms. I hope that the Government will consider requiring minicab drivers to have proper commercial insurance. They should suffer hefty fines if they fail to comply with the requirements.
I am convinced that clause 4 was the wrong way to approach the problem in the centre of London. There are not so many drivers of black cabs living in my constituency as in Ilford, North, but there are a considerable number and they have expressed concern about the measure. We have to ensure that they are properly looked after and that their taxi system is not undermined. I should be the last to say that we should not have ample competition, but certain standards must be met. Women need a safe and reliable form of transport, especially late at night. They need to know that they can get home without being molested, and that they can rely on the driver to have integrity, not to have a criminal record, to have adequate insurance and to be properly qualified in driving skills, so that they know where they are being taken. The black cab service is second to none.
I am delighted to welcome the Bill, and I wish the remainder of it a successful passage through the House.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: As a provincial Member, I had not intended to barge in on the cosy deliberations of London Members. However, I am increasingly alarmed at the terms of clause 4. Anything up to half my constituents come to London every day to work, and they are proud of the standard of service provided by the black cabs in our great capital city, but clause 4 would undermine that service.
As a west Kent Member, I have many constituents who serve as licensed black cab drivers in London. They are alarmed at clause 4. Their concern can best be summed up by a letter that I received from Mr. J. L. Rogers of Istead rise in my constituency:
In London we already have a licensing authority, the Metropolitan police, which produces the most envied taxi service in the world. This Bill will completely undermine this service, as people who would want to sign on to do 'the knowledge', could see a much easier option to become 'legal'.
Clearly, whether or not the promoters intended it, clause 4 would do much to destroy the quality of the taxi service in London. Therefore, I was reassured to hear from the sponsor of the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—that he intends to


recommend that, in Committee, clause 4 and its attachments be withdrawn. On that basis, I do not intend to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: As another outsider, I came back from my constituency tonight, as I am worried about clause 4. It must be said to the House that clause 4 must go. Anything less would not he acceptable. I must declare an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and as a practising barrister, but I have also drawn experience from my days as a member of Sheffield city council. Unfortunately, in Sheffield we did not have a large number of black cab drivers, so we had the minicab problem.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) spoke about clause 6. When I served as deputy chairman of a licensing committee many years ago, I experienced the problem that it was not possible to place restrictions on where drivers went. We did not have enough knowledge about them, and, more important, we could not control their vehicles. The black cabs meet those criteria. As I said earlier, I am worried about carriage—especially at night—by persons who are not vetted in vehicles that may not be of the right standard and quality. That is a matter for further concern, and we should examine it in the near future in a wider area than London.
I see that the Minister for Public Transport is in his place. I have heard horrible rumours that he is about to move, but most Ministers are about to move in the near future, so it matters not. If he does move, perhaps his successor will mark my words: there is a considerable feeling in the House that we should examine licensing, vehicle structure and control, as it is causing increasing concern. One reads and hears of attacks on innocent members of the public by minicab drivers who adopt a "here today, gone tomorrow" approach, whose names are sometimes unknown, and whose vehicles are sometimes uninsured and probably began their first journey of the day from the scrap yard and returned to it on their last journey of the evening. Throughout the day, they place the lives of human beings at risk.
As for clause 6, I welcome the idea of crime prevention, but I do not think that the clause goes far enough. Its wording is very loose and, in Committee, I should like the Minister to reassure London local authorities that he will help to fund crime prevention. We have all been faced with rate capping in the past; my own local authority has just been poll tax-capped.
When deciding how to spend money—for instance, on supporting bodies that give assistance to victims, on neighbourhood watch schemes and so on—local authorities, when capped and when their standard spending assessments do not include money for crime prevention, cannot encourage it. I gently suggest that money is necessary for preventing crime. The Home Office does its bit for crime research, but local authorities have an enormous part to play in bringing home good crime prevention ideas locally; they in turn might just bring down the crime rate and that would enhance the quality of our lives.
However, all this requires money. Clause 6 is not broad or detailed enough, and perhaps it needs tidying up in

Committee. On this important night, when local authorities are being elected and re-elected, I suggest that, before the Minister departs for other shores, he might persuade his colleagues that there could be some mileage in putting a little Government money into helping local authorities with crime prevention.
I apologise for trespassing on the affairs of London, but as an outsider who lives and works in London occasionally, I thought that some things had to be said.

Mr. Hanley: The whole House has given a vote of confidence tonight to the licensed hackney carriage trade. I repeat what I said earlier: it is the best carriage trade m the world. The promoters—the 31 London boroughs—did not and do not intend any harm or insult to that trade; they merely wanted to protect the public from the deficiencies in the London minicab trade and in the minicab trade throughout the country by bringing into London legislation exactly the same as that which has served the rest of the country for the past 14 years. This legislation was perhaps to be a precursor of tougher legislation, following important research by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.
There are many other important clauses in the Bill and it is clear from the thoughtful contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the House that people would be sad if the other clauses failed. So the promoters have reluctantly—but understanding the feelings of the House—given a firm instruction to the Committee to withdraw clause 4 and schedule 2. I hope that, in return, those who have petitioned the Committee will feel that they can withdraw their petitions so that the Bill can become an unopposed measure in Committee. I know that I have the assurance of the licensed taxi drivers' trade; I do not yet have the assurance of the TGWU——

Ms. Ruddock: I cannot give an instruction for the withdrawal of the petition, but I will certainly recommend it and expect that it will be accepted.

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her constructive intervention.

Mr. Bendall: I do not want to delay the House, but the LTDA will do likewise. It cannot speak for others, of course. I believe that there is a third petition.

Mr Hanley: There is a third petition. As it was only on clause 4 and schedule 2, the House would appreciate it if' the petitioner would think carefully, read tonight's debate and act accordingly.

Mr. Bendall: I have had the nod from the Strangers' Gallery to withdraw the other petition.

Mr Hanley: This is a most happy but strange occasion. I am acting on behalf of 31 London boroughs and I find myself thrilled to have failed so magnificently but achieved the withdrawal of the three petitions.
The House will welcome the fact that the Bill is now an unopposed private Bill. In that spirit, may I ask that it be given a Second Reading?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — Railway Line (North Wales Coast)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): This is the second Adjournment debate that I have been fortunate enough to secure. On the first occasion, I referred to the town of Holyhead and its importance as a port linking Ireland with Wales, England and mainland Europe. The fact that in this debate I will concentrate my remarks on railway links, which form an integral part of the transport network linking Ireland and Europe, shows the continuing importance of the topic to my constituents and to the people of north-west Wales.
The town and port of Holyhead prospered when strategic decisions were made about the A5 across to the island over Telford's bridge and the railway link built over the Britannia bridge. In the 19th century, the Holyhead to Dun Laoghaire and Dublin link became the premier route for Irish traffic.
Almost two centuries later, Holyhead once again assumes central importance as new links are opened for European traffic. The position of Ireland and Wales on the Community's periphery makes good road and railway communications vital to our prosperity. As the House knows, our economy in north-west Wales has a weak base and in recent years has been buffeted by the economic downturn and recession, but to enable us to fight back, as we will, and to compete effectively in the Europe of big companies and financial battalions, an integrated transport network is essential.
The opening of the channel tunnel later this decade and the introduction of the open market in 1992 bring into focus the need for early decisions, as we are in the process of setting a European network of communications to serve us for the next 100 years. Any area that has no link in that network will be severely disadvantaged and in danger of becoming an economic backwater. The gap between the rich and poor regions will become even wider.
My view, which is shared by many others, as I will explain, is that the north Wales coast railway line between Holyhead and Crewe must be upgraded and electrified as part of the process of improving our communications. British Rail's current position is that the line does not have priority in its strategic planning and it is not prepared to commit itself to the investment necessary for such a scheme, although European Community funds could be available for the project. Indeed, although it has upgraded part of the line between Bangor and Crewe, it is not prepared to upgrade the section across the island of Anglesey. On parts of that section, trains are reduced to low speeds because of the condition of the track. I ask the Minister to have talks with British Rail officials on that specific issue.
Upgrading the line is a prerequisite of any electrification scheme. The track must be suitable to take the high speeds that trains can achieve on an electrified network. When the channel tunnel opens, apart from the sea crossing between Holyhead and Ireland, a passenger travelling from Dublin to either Brussels or Paris will have the benefit of an electrified line right across the system, apart from the Holyhead to Crewe section. We will be the weak link in the chain——

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Jones: The campaign to have the rail link electrified has received a significant boost in recent months. The Dublin chamber of commerce, which represents the Irish Republic's main business community, believes that the bulk of Ireland's container loads should be carried via Dublin to Holyhead and then onwards. Currently, that route is losing business to the more circuitous routes through Lame and Belfast, at an estimated cost to the Irish economy of £56 million a year.
I ask the Minister to consider the recommendations in the report of the Dublin chamber of commerce, entitled "Corridor to Competitiveness", where many of the arguments are set out in detail. The report argues that the Holyhead to Dublin route, which is referred to as the central corridor, should become the premier route for Irish commercial traffic, both for roll-on, roll-off and for lift-on, lift-off traffic. That is ro-ro for roads and lo-lo for trains. Combined, they account for 58 per cent. of Ireland's external trade, 80 per cent. of which is destined for the United Kingdom market and the balance for the continent.
For most traffic, the central corridor offers the most potential as a reliable and efficient route, providing a short sea crossing to Holyhead and the shortest door-to-door mileage. Of the total number of units emanating from the Irish Republic, a further 125,000 could be accommodated through the central corridor given better facilities both at Holyhead and Dublin, better communications, and certain other factors. There is enormous potential for Holyhead, but clearly we must become more competitive in journey times and more efficient in port handling facilities and we must secure more frequent sailings.
The Irish business community is seeking its Government's backing for the development of a central corridor on the Irish side, with better links to Dublin and better facilities in the port. That backing will almost certainly be given, but it will be meaningless in practical terms unless both the Welsh Office and the Department of Transport are equally committed to securing developments at Holyhead and improvements in the rail network. Only 65,000 units are currently transported by rail through that central corridor. If we are to maximise Holyhead's true potential, that figure must increase significantly.
I readily acknowledge the large investment already undertaken by the Government to dual the A55 across north Wales and the recent announcement to dual the A5 across the island, which is most welcome. That will increase Holyhead's competitiveness. The shipping companies that operate from the ports, Sealink and B and I Line, estimate that those improvements will enable them to carry more commercial traffic.
However, in the end, the road could become the victim of its own success. Even now, we expect it to carry more traffic than was ever envisaged. That is why it is essential to have a rail link as an alternative, but it must be good, efficient and provide a quick service. Once the road is complete, the rail service must retain its competitive edge; unless it does so, it will lose out dramatically.
The campaign to secure the electrification of the line has, in the main, been taken on by the so-called three counties committee, representing the counties of


Gwynedd, Clwyd and Cheshire. I place on record my compliments for the tremendous work done by this team in keeping the issue in the public eye and campaigning vigorously. It began its work in 1985, and subsequently commissioned a report, backed by European Community funding and the British Government, to look at the case for electrifying the line, with particular regard to the benefits for inter-city and freight traffic.
The consultants' report shows that, even by the United Kingdom investment criteria, a conditional case could be made for electrification at a cost of about £50 million. It also said that further work needed to be done to establish the opportunity for developing the Holyhead route as a principal freight route between Europe, Britain and Ireland and including an electrified link to Manchester.
The consultants' evaluation has already identified that the concentration of international freight on the line would improve the viability of electrification. The Crewe-Holyhead railway link would, after the opening of the channel tunnel, be the most direct and quick surface route between most of Europe and Ireland. It establishes further that the upgrading of the Crewe to Holyhead line is probably one of the most effective ways to reduce the peripheral status of Ireland and Wales in the post-1992 European Community.
We need to consider the prospects for that line if it is electrified. The overall market for which rail competes in the commercial sector is growing rapidly, at a rate of 5 per cent. per annum. The rail route captures 10 per cent. of the Irish-Great Britain market and a direct route from Ireland to the continent is not available realistically until the channel tunnel opens. However, the potential for increase is substantial when the current Ireland-Europe traffic is brought into the equation, and that will be the case when the channel tunnel is operational. This accounts for 25 per cent. of the total. To attract more traffic or to persuade shippers to diverge from other routes, its use must be effective in terms of cost and transit time.
The overall growth in the total market has been estimated by consultants as 33 per cent. by 1993 if present trends continue and the forecast growth estimated by the single European A is realised. Total markets will be as much as 1 million units by the late 1990s. Therefore, we must look at the potential to increase the current 65,000 units carried by rail through Holyhead, and the consultants estimate that this could increase to over 100,000 if the line is electrified. I acknowledge that this depends on better handling facilities at the port of Holyhead and more frequent sailings.
The representatives of the three counties met the European Transport Commissioner, Karel Van Miert, in October 1989 to ascertain whether European Community funding for the project would be available. The three counties' representatives asked the Commission what assistance could be made available. The Commissioner, fully appreciating the force of the European argument in relation to Ireland, was sympathetic to the electrification proposal. It appears that the Commission would be keen to promote this line as one of European significance and support it by transportation funds when they become available. However, the Commissioner pointed out that it would be possible for that European support to be secured only if an application was made by Governments, and in this case that includes both the British and Irish Governments.
The three counties committee was so encouraged by the response in Brussels that it arranged a further series of meetings with the Irish Government and representatives of the Irish business community to discuss the plan. I was fortunate enough to be able recently to join the delegation for part of its deliberations in Dublin. At a meeting with the Irish Transport Minister, the local authorities were encouraged by his response. He seemed to be an enthusiastic supporter of the project. He suggested that he was prepared to discuss the matter with his counterpart, the Secretary of State for Transport, and I ask the Minister to tell us whether any communication has been received from the Irish Government on the issue and whether the United Kingdom Government are ready to respond, or to tell us how far matters have progressed.
I have read a report by Mr. Tom Ferris, the head of the planning unit of the Department of Transport and Tourism in the Irish Republic, on the implications of the channel tunnel for Ireland. He makes it clear that for Ireland to benefit from the channel tunnel link there must be significant improvements in the quality of service from ports such as Holyhead. He reports that for rail passengers, good train communications from ports such as Holyhead are essential.
Any switch from road to rail traffic carries significant environmental benefits. Indeed, any such switch is likely to confer environmental benefits through reductions in air pollution and noise. Those benefits are unlikely to be significant, however, unless the development of the railway is accompanied by other initiatives, especially those designed to capture container traffic. I believe—I am sure that the House will accept this—that a switch to rail would also reduce accidents. British Rail's accident record is excellent. Another advantage would be a reduction in our dependence upon oil.
It is important—this is an aside from the main thrust of the debate—that consideration should be given to better rail links between north and south Wales. It causes some irritation and anger to people in north Wales that it is far easier to travel to London by train than to our own capital city of Cardiff. I ask the Minister to impress upon British Rail the need to introduce a good, fast and efficient inter-city service between north and south Wales to reduce the noisy, tacky and unacceptable sprinter trains which currently service the route.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in his precious Adjournment debate. I support everything that he said about the electrification of the north Wales line. I say as a Clwyd Member that this case is well put. He referred to a link between north and south Wales, but also to be considered is the electrification of the Crewe-Wolverhampton line via Shrewsbury. That would lead to better communications with the channel tunnel south, which is important. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply to that as well as to my hon. Friend's submissions.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention. I am sure that the Minister will have heard it.
The Minister will appreciate that I have set out the argument for electrifying the north Wales line in a European context. That electrification, however, would have enormous economic spin-offs for the economy of


north Wales generally. It would go a substantial way towards providing us with an essential ingredient of economic regeneration of the area, which is that of good transport communications. To my constituency, of course, Holyhead is the beginning of the line, not the end of it. I believe that the case for electrification has now been set out fully. I urge the Minister to respond positively, to say that the Government are prepared to consider the matter constructively and that the Department of Transport should arrange an urgent meeting with British Rail and the three counties committee to ascertain how best the plan can be funded. With such a commitment, I am sure that British Rail would also come out in favour of the plan.
The plan is supported by the Irish Government, the Irish business community, Irish local authorities, the Welsh business community and Welsh local authorities. The European Commission is also prepared to entertain an application. All that I need to say to the Minister tonight is: join the club and invest in a worthwhile project.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): That is a beguiling invitation from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), and I congratulate him on securing the debate. I thank him most warmly for his courtesy to me before the debate, which will enable us to have a more worthwhile debate than we might otherwise have had.
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to the work that is under way on the roads programme, which has been taken seriously. To date, 50 of the 60 miles of the A55 between Chester and Holyhead have been improved to dual carriageway standard at a cost of £327 million. The three improvement schemes currently under construction are expected to cost about £269 million, and the two final schemes in preparation a further £21 million. Therefore, total expenditure on the A55 will approach £620 million, and work is expected to be completed by the end of 1993. As the hon. Gentleman said, plans to upgrade to dual carriageway standard the A55 between Holyhead and the existing dual carriageway were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and I am pleased that that, too, was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), through whose constituencies the north Wales coast railway line passes, would have wished to be present for this debate, but due to their ministerial duties they cannot be here. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) is here, and I am delighted to see him. However, those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who cannot be here have expressed to me their interest on behalf of their constituents in this important subject. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) intervened in the debate, an opportunity unfortunately not open to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. Some of the remarks that I am about to make are of general application and will help the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West.
Improvement of railway routes, and particularly electrification, is an emotive subject on which a few outside commentators sometimes generate more heat than light.

The question of the best means of traction on a particular route is, first and foremost, a matter of operational and economic significance which should be determined by BR. On some routes, the operational and economic arguments point to electrification, and on others to using diesels. The notion that somehow a non-electrified line is a poor relation—almost something to be ashamed of—is wrong, but I am aware that that feeling exists. Often, higher speeds can be achieved on some diesel-hauled lines than are achieved on other lines where electrification has taken place.
The Government are happy to give approval to railway investment wherever it makes commercial sense. Our record speaks for itself. In the past two years alone we have approved four electrification schemes totalling £90 million, and in the past 10 years 12 schemes totalling £780 million, including the largest-ever single electrification scheme—the east coast main line—costing £460 million. Electrification takes place where a case can be made for it to the Government.
I understand that BR currently sees no reason to electrify the Crewe to Holyhead line. That view is based in part on the joint study carried out with BR's co-operation by Clwyd, Gwynedd and Cheshire county councils, which so far has failed to demonstrate an economic case, but I understand that further work is being carried out to see whether other, non-user benefits can be identified. However, British Rail has plans to upgrade the line from Chester to Bangor by straightening the worst of the curves, thereby improving line speeds so as to take full advantage of the 90 mph class 158 express trains due to come into operation in the next two to three years. Those new trains will provide smoother, more comfortable rides, with air-conditioning, luggage space and tables at each seat. But perhaps the greatest benefit will be a reduction in the journey time of up to 18 minutes—another demonstration that journey times can be improved without electrification.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question, I understand that on the Holyhead to Bangor section of the line, because of prevailing geological conditions, there will always be difficulties in running at very high speeds on some sectors. However, it is hoped that upgrading the line will result in an average speed of 60 mph—a considerable improvement.
I recognise that the channel tunnel is a new ingredient, and I should say something about that. As far as channel tunnel passenger traffic is concerned, British Rail's current intention is to link services from north Wales into the trains from Manchester to Paris and Brussels. It does not believe at this stage that there is a commercial case—in the short to medium term at least—for operating through services, but it will be keeping its planned services under constant review, both up to the opening of the tunnel and thereafter. It will revise its plans as appropriate, as the pattern of demand for international services and the associated commercial opportunities become clearer. It is some years before the channel tunnel will be open, and none of us really knows what opportunities it will create.
The Irish Government made the point to us that the north Wales railway to Holyhead is of great significance to Ireland in the wider European context. Correspondence has been exchanged between the relevant Irish Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Irish Government are anxious to ensure that inadequate infrastructure or services on the line do


not inhibit Ireland's ability to take advantage of the channel tunnel to facilitate speedier access, particularly for freight, to continental Europe.
We have made it clear that we are happy for British Rail to examine that aspect, to see whether any extra international traffic arising as a result of the opening of the channel tunnel would justify upgrading or electrification of the route. I am sure that British Rail welcomes the prospect of any additional freight traffic—which can, of course, be hauled perfectly well without electrification of the line.
British Rail's plans for freight are based on daily services operated from three "train operating centres" at which wagons from private sidings and freight terminals can be sorted into complete trainloads for common destinations. By those means, daily services could be provided from all over the United Kingdom to many continental centres. One of the facilities is likely to be at Crewe. Therefore, whether or not the north Wales line is electrified, all channel tunnel freight movement on the line is likely to enter the system at Crewe, and a change of locomotive traction at that point would not represent a penalty on movements.
I know that there are some Governments and important voices in the European Commission who believe that the Community should establish a large transport infrastructure fund to pay for improvements to such lines. I have to say that the Government have reservations about that approach. From the point of view of narrow national self-interest, the United Kingdom would certainly have to pay more into such a fund than it would get out of it. In effect, there is a risk that the British taxpayer would be subsidising uneconomic projects elsewhere in the Community. A quick look at the map of the Community would show that that is likely to be the case.
More importantly, projects which would not be cost-effective should not, in the Government's view, be subsidised—whatever the source of the funds. We are very happy that the line should he looked at in the wider European context, but I must sound a note of caution to any in our fellow EC countries who believe that there is, or should be, a pot of gold available to satisfy everyone's wishes.
In the same vein, it has been suggested that the European regional development fund or the existing transport infrastructure programme are appropriate sources of money. However, the sums available under either are substantially smaller than even the amount required for an electrification scheme of the type being proposed today. In the case of the ERDF, this seems to be the result of a self-denying ordinance that the Commission itself has applied to the use of those funds.
While it is true that the Community has a role in developing European transport in preparation for 1992, its role is very much one of opening up barriers to trade and facilitating access between member states. We should not be distracting ourselves with setting up unnecessary new funding mechanisms when existing institutions such as the European regional development fund or the European investment bank can perform perfectly well in those areas. Instead, we should be concentrating on the benefits to be gained in making further progress with liberalisation, technical harmonisation, and deregulation—which will themselves encourage both the efficiency of transport operations and the development of infrastructure.
Perhaps I may conclude the debate by emphasising again the need for a sense of proportion when talking about electrification of railway lines. The large costs of electrification are justified only if they produce worthwhile results. The main benefits are operational—normally in terms of reduced maintenance and operating costs to the railway operator. The direct benefit to passengers in terms of speed and comfort can be negligible—possibly a small decrease in journey time from faster acceleration. High-speed journeys, air conditioning and comfortable vehicles can be achieved with diesel rolling stock.
Whether a line will benefit from electrification depends on trends in costs, including fuel prices, and on the density of use. If an equally good service can be provided more economically by diesel traction, that is the right course. What matters is quality, reliability and journey times, and I am sure that British Rail's large investment programme is starting to produce the results that all of us wish to see, not only in north Wales, but throughout the country.
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about good links to and through his constituency. The Government have shown clearly their commitment to that in the road programme that I described, with its substantial investment in providing dual carriageway through to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is clear that British Rail, too, is intent on making improvements.
Many improvements can be made other than electrification. Electrification is not the be-all and end-all. At present British Rail does not see the case for electrification, but it is happy to continue studying it in conjunction with the councils that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The Government's attitude remains that if a worthwhile case is presented to us we shall be happy to approve it, just as we have been happy to approve so many cases in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.